The Overturned Nuns
במדבר י {ס} ] }ס{לה וַיְהִי בִנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן, וַיֹאמֶר מֹשֶה: קוּמָה ה', וְיָפֻצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ, וְיָנֻסוּ מְשַנְאֶיךָ, מִפָנֶיךָ. לו וּבְנֻחֹה, יֹאמַר: שוּבָה ה', רִ בְבוֹת אַלְפֵי יִשְרָאֵל. {ס} ] {פ}
The Seven Books of Moshe
(Gemara Shabbos (116a) cites Rebbi & Raban Shimon ben Gamliel)
According to Rebbi these verses are in the correct place, and the two Nunin serve as a form of a bracket (parenthesis), symbolizing that these verses from their own book. Thus, the Torah consists of seven books, in keeping with Mishlei 9:1 “He carved its pillars seven.”
Rabbi Menachem Leibtag (tanach.org) suggests the separate book suggest what might have been.
- Book One of Bemidbar: Bnai Yisrael’s preparations for their journey (Chapters 1-10)
- Book Two: The ideal (what could have been)
- Book Three: The actual journey that “failed” (chapters 11-36)
Halacha: A Torah scroll must be deposed in a high decree of respect; unless the scroll is so worn out that less than 85 letters remain intact. We learn this from the 85 letters in these two verses. Interestingly, the smallest sefer in Tanach, Rus, has just eighty-five verses.
Out of Place
According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, these two Nunin indicate that these verses are out of place (by 50 parshiyos, back to the journeys in the desert). They are inserted here to divide between two sets of punishments.
The punishments afterwards include the complainers, the incident with the Slav, and eventually the Spies. The punishment before possibly refers to the way the Jews traveled from G-d’s mountain. The Medrash says the Jews left like a child leaves school, running away, for they had enough (Torah) study.
Who is Wise?
“The one that anticipates the future.” Children do not understand the importance of education, and are eager to leave. Adults appreciate it, and invest for the future. This is a subtle misconception of the value of Torah and Mitzvos.
If someone offered you an opportunity to gather diamonds, how would you react? “Gevalt, I’ll have to bend down time after time and pick up little stones, and my sack will become heavier for the trip to the diamond exchange to receive cash. What a pain!” But if you appreciate the value, one does not run away.
The ideal service of HaShem is described as “all your days”, without interruption with consistency and constancy (see Ibn Ezra Devarim 19:9). The Gemara (Berachos 6a) says that if some comes regularly to synagogue, and one day is absent, HaShem inquires as to the absence. HaShem does not ask about the one who does not attend regularly.
When the Jews left the mountain already the seeds of lacking the strength and stamina to make the consistent effort to journey to Eretz Yisrael.
The letter Nun represents Neeman, faithfulness and consistency (as referring to Moshe). The inverted Nuns, therefore, represent inconsistency and self-contradiction.
Note: Meam Loaz says the two Nuns refer to Naaseh V’Nishma. Just as the Jews turned their back on Har Sinai, so too the letters Nun are reversed, like someone whose back is turned.
Where else do we find overturned Nuns in the Tanach?
We find 7 overturned Nuns in Tehillim 107, the only other place in Tanach
One Sin Leads to Another
The Gemara in Shabbos (116a) cites a Machlokes between Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rebbi explains that the Parshah of "Vayehi bi'n'so'a ho'Oron"(10:35), is written in its correct place, and the two 'Nunin' there serve as a form of brackets (parenthesis), symbolizing that these two Pesukim are 'a Book on their own'. And how consequently, the Torah consists of seven books, rather than five (in keeping with the Pasuk in Mishlei 9:1) "He carved its pillars seven".
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, on the other hand, holds that the Torah consists of five books and not seven. He considers these two Pesukim to be out of place, and the two (back to front) 'Nunin' indicate that they belong fifty Parshiyos back in Bamidbar (where the Torah deals with the journeys in the desert). And the reason the Torah inserts them here is 'to divide between one punishment and another'. (Deviated slightly from Rabeinu Bachye, who establishes Raban Shimon ben Gamliel as a third opinion, rather than being the same as the Tana Kama).
According to Rashi, the Gemara is referring to the two sins which follow immediately - their grumbling about the lack of meat (which began already during the first three days [before the Parshah of "Vayehi bi'n'so'a ho'Oron"]), and their unspecified grumbling (which the commentaries ascribe to their having to travel in the desert).
Tosfos however, disagrees (presumably because then the two sins are mentioned in the reverse order (see Ramban on the Pasuk), and besides, both sins are then written after "Vayehi bi'n'so'a ho'Oron", leaving us with no real division. Consequently, the Ramban (as well as many other commentaries) cite the Medrash that Yisrael sinned when they left Har Sinai (which the Torah has just described in the previous Pasuk), by running away from it 'like a child runs away from school'. And that is the first sin, the sin which the Gemara describes as having taken place before "Vayehi bi'n'so'a ho'Oron". In fact, the Ramban goes even further. In his opinion, it is not just two punishments juxtaposed which the Torah is trying to avoid, but three: running away from Har Sinai like a child ..., and their grumbling, first about traveling and then about the shortage of meat.
And what the Torah sets out to avoid here is that Yisrael should develop a Chazakah (a triumvirate) of punishments. One of the other punishments, (as opposed to just sins) suggests the Ramban, is the fact that they did not enter Eretz Yisrael immediately, as they would otherwise have done.
The difficulty with the Ramban's interpretation of Chazal lies in the fact that Chazal only refer to two punishments and not three. According to his explanation they should have said, not 'to divide between one punishment and another', but 'in order to divide between two of the punishments and the third'. And it would then have been more appropriate to make the break between the second sin and the third (in order to stop the Chazakah), rather than between the first and second. Maybe that is why Rabeinu Bachye, who often follows the Ramban, prefers here to learn like Rashi. In fact, he equates the sin of Yisrael's desire with that of their running away from Har Sinai. Yisrael ran away from Har Sinai like a child from school, he explains, because they had had enough of 'ruchniyus' (spirituality). They wanted more 'gashmiyus' (physicality), which they deliberately developed, as implied by the words "his'avu ta'avah" (they desired [to have] a desire). That was their first sin, as Rashi explains.
Rabeinu Bachye points out how their complaint about the travels in the desert and their desire for meat did not end there. (Besides what Chazal say, that they immediately went on to grumble about the prohibition of incest), this Parshah is followed in quick succession, by the Lashon ha'ra of Miriam, and the Spies (one sin leads to another - all the sins note, are connected with evil speech). So, we see that we are dealing here, not with one or even two, sins, but with a spate of sins that takes up the whole of this Parshah as well as the next (and beyond).
A great man once said that when, in the World to Come, a person is taken to task for idle chatter, he will not be asked why he spoke devarim beteilim for so many hours, but why he began speaking in the first place. Having begun, he cannot help but continue, and O'nes Rachmana patreih (one is not taken to task for something that is beyond his control). It is his opening words which he could, and should, have nipped in the bud.
The same concept can be applied to the idea of Aveirah goreres aveirah. Having sinned once, he is, to a certain degree, an O'nes on his subsequent sins, and the brunt of his guilt lies on his first sin (perhaps we can refer to them as 'the cause'). The subsequent sins are one string of sins, rather than so many individual ones ('the effect'). And that is what Chazal mean when they say that the Torah inserts Vayehi bi'n'so'a ho'Oron 'to divide between one punishment and another. Because in this way, the cause (running away from Har Sinai), is on one side of the divider, and the effect (the ensuing sins), on the other.
