In this week’s parsha, Nasso, the counting of the Jewish people which began in the previous parsha, is completed. Rash”i (Numbers 1:1) comments:

“Because the people are dear to God, God counts them often.  When they went forth from Egypt God counted them, when many of them fell in consequence of their having worshiped the golden calf God counted them to ascertain the number of those left, and here, when God was about to cause the Shechinah to dwell amongst them (in the Tabernacle) God again took their census, for on the first day of Nisan the Tabernacle was erected and now, on the first day of Iyar, God counted them.”

Rashi sees counting as a positive expression of love and as a way of facilitating the Divine Presence amongst the people, yet we, in fact, are quite wary of counting people. For instance, when we count to ensure a minyan we do not use numbers to count people but a verse with 10 words in it, in order to avoid any ayin hara, evil eye, to be cast upon the people. (When I was a child, the older men in the shul when counting for a minyan, in order to avoid counting the people, would count them and say “not one, not two…”, this I do not think is the best approach.)

We see the negative repercussions of counting in several places in Tanach. For instance, in the book of Exodus (30:12) the people were counted by means of a half shekel in order to avoid a plague among the Jewish people. In the second book of Shmuel (Chapter 24) King David is punished (along with the people) by God for counting the people. Additionally, the Talmud (Yoma 22b) writes that the young priests would race to the altar to perform the Temple service. If several reached the altar at the same time they would each stick out a finger and the head priest would perform a lottery by randomly choosing a high number and counting them. Whomever the count landed on would perform the service. The Talmud says this was done by counting fingers instead of individuals because it is forbidden to count people directly.

In contrast, in the Sanhedrin, counting individuals was not only permitted but required:

“‘Your navel is like a round goblet that never lacks blended wine; your belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies (Song of Songs 7:2).’ This verse refers to the Sanhedrin…’Your navel is like a round goblet’ – Just as the navel is in the center of the body so too does the Sanhedrin meet in the center of the world, the Temple mount. ‘That never lacks blended wine’ – Just as wine is blended with a third of a portion of wine, so too the Sanhedrine can not meet with less than a third of its members present, (i.e. 23). So what did one of the judges do when he wanted to leave to go to the bathroom?  He would count those remaining to ensure there are at least 23 (one third of the 71 members)…”(Midrash, Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1).

Why is counting ok in the Sanhedrin? Counting depends on attitude. Counting is dangerous because it renders people numbers instead of the infinite individuals, made in the image of God, that they are. Indeed, we are well aware in our generation of how our enemies numbered us to destroy us, which is why the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem is called Yad v’Shem, “A hand and A Name.” The Sanhedrin, a court of law, is the epitome of the person as an individual. The court must know the individual opinion of each member. The individual is not subsumed but rather matters so much they have the power to change the “all”. The sanhedrin not only votes to count a majority, but argues – we must know not just how many there are but what they say.

This idea is summed up well in a blessing called “Chacham Harazim,” “the Knower of Secrets,” which is listed in the back of the siddur and recited upon seeing a multitude of people. As the Medrash states (Bamidbar Rabbah 21): “Our Rabbis taught: If one sees an enormous crowd of people, they should say, ‘Blessed is He who is wise of secrets, for the mind of each is different from that of the other, just as the face of each is different from that of the other.’”  The inspirational power of a lot of people is in the realization that indeed they are all profoundly and infinitely individual.