Recording of the Deaths of Er and Onan

 Parshat Pinchas 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet (with much help from Rabbi Hayyim Ibn Atar) 

There is a census in Parshas Pinchas that follows the plague at Shittim, which was promulgated by the events of Baal Pe’or, in which 24,000 people died. This census is reported in a similar fashion to the one recorded in Parshas B’midbar, though here it goes into larger details about the names of the families in the different tribes. The census tally is relatively close to what it had been at that time – then 603,550, now 601,730. That the population essentially replaced itself would seem fairly natural. The oddity is seeing how some tribes have grown tremendously in numbers (such as Menashe), while others have a significant decrease (ie Shimon). The Leviim, in their separate count, go from 22,000 to 23,000. Unlike the regular tribes, this is a very strange degree of growth, as our tradition has it that the tribe of Levi was not subject to the decree against the generation of the spies. Thus they would not be subject to mere replacement, as many of those who were over 20 could very well still be alive at this time. 

 Additionally, there are a number of added components to the census – some of which make sense (mentioning Tzlafchad’s daughters), and some which don’t make sense as they contribute nothing to the actual census. Yehuda’s sons who died before the family even came down to Egypt are mentioned. Dasan and Aviram and Korach – all of whom are dead – are mentioned. Nadav and Avihu, who left no children, are mentioned in the census of the Leviim (even though they are surely not “counted”). 

While the verse regarding Yehuda’s sons (26:19) is very straightforward - בְּנֵ֥י יְהוּדָ֖ה עֵ֣ר וְאוֹנָ֑ן וַיָּ֥מָת עֵ֛ר וְאוֹנָ֖ן בְּאֶ֥רֶץ כְּנָֽעַן: The sons of Yehuda, Er and Onan; Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. Most commentaries have nothing to say on it. Onkelos translates it directly, while Targum Yonatan adds “Er and Onan died on account of their sins in the Land of Canaan.” 

 There is one standout, however, and that is Or HaChaim, who has a very lengthy comment on this verse, in which he takes the verse to be teaching us things which go far and beyond the plain meaning of the text. Please note that I took the following translation from Sefaria. It is more of a loose and “commented upon” translation, including some of the editors "insights" and fleshed out translation

 בני יהודה, the sons of Yehudah. This whole paragraph (19-22) is full of allusions to the history of the Jewish people. The reason the Torah has chosen to present us with these hints when enumerating the family members of Yehudah is because Yehudah is symbolic of the Jewish people as a whole. We have learned already in Bereshit Rabbah 98,6 that when one used to ask a Jew who was a member of a certain tribe to identify himself he would describe himself first and foremost as a Yehudi, not as a Shimoni or Reuveni, for instance. When our verse starts with the words בני יהודה, the Torah has in mind the descendants of Yehudah, not just his actual sons. Er and Onan respectively are allusions to the premature destruction of both the first and the second Temple. Er, the first, and as alluded to in Song of Songs 5,2: "I am asleep but my heart is ער, "awake." This means that while the first Temple was standing G'd was very much "awake," watching over my fate.

 Onan is an allusion to the second Temple. The Torah refers to it as Onan, an expression denoting אונאה, deception, as many of the holy vessels such as the Holy Ark, etc. were missing during the entire period of the second Temple's operation.

 The Torah goes on to say that Er and Onan died, a reference to the destruction of both Temples. Departure of the שכינה, G'd's Presence, from the Temple, is described as death. Just as death of a body is the departure of the soul, so the departure of the Holy Presence of G'd is the death of the Temple. The cause, of course, were the sins committed by the Jewish people. Instead of being filled with G'd's Presence, the respective Temples became filled with the negative spiritual forces created through the sins committed. There is also an opinion according to which the specific sins which the original Er and Onan had been guilty of became the cause of the destruction of both Temples (compare Shabbat 62). The Talmud there states that the Jews were causing their bedsteads to become evil-smelling with semen (which was not theirs), committing the same sin as Er who is reported as being "evil" i.e. wasting his semen, in the eyes of G'd (Genesis 38,7). 

 Onan's sin which is held responsible for the destruction of the second Temple, i.e. "senseless hatred" as described in Yuma 9, was that he hated his deceased brother and did not want that his name should be perpetuated through his impregnating his brother's widow (compare Genesis 38,9). The word Onan is derived from the Hebrew אונאה which also describes mutual harassment, i.e. causeless hatred. The Torah concludes verse 19 by mentioning ארץ כנען, to remind us that these sins were committed on holy soil and that the souls of people who died on such soil because of such sins were returned to the domain of Samael, otherwise known as Canaan. 

 There is also an allusion of a more comprehensive nature here. It is that the reason the Israelites did not hold on to ארץ ישראל permanently was that they never completed the command to drive out or kill the Canaanites completely. Allowing the Canaanites to co-exist with them in the same land enabled the remaining Canaanites to seduce the Israelites into worshiping idols and adopting many of the abominable practices of that nation, the name Eretz Canaan. The Torah introduces the sons of Yehudah here with the word ויהיו, a word which usually is a prelude to something painful, some negative experience. The painful experience our verse alludes to is the destruction of the Temple (ויי היו – Woe it was!) and the exile and persecution which occurred as a corollary of the destruction of the House of G'd. Hail to people who have never had to taste the bitter experience of exile. You will note that the expression ויהיו is not mentioned in connection with any of the other tribes except Yehudah and regarding one of the families of Benjamin, i.e. Bela. The reason for this will be explained in due course. 

 The Torah writes למשפחותם, according to their "families," as the destruction of the Temple affected all the families of the Jewish nation wherever they were, negatively. Anyone bearing the name Yehudi viewed the Temple's destruction as a personal disaster, i.e. וי היו, they were in a state of mourning. 

 The reference to Shelah is an allusion to the redeemer who will redeem the Jewish people from their final exile. His name is called שלה. Although when Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his death bed he called the same Messiah שילה (with the extra letter י), this detail does not change the name materially. If you will take a close look at the names recorded here and compare them with the ones in Genesis chapter 46, you will find numerous changes in the spelling. Perhaps the formula שלה is a form of the possessive as it belongs together with the words ויהיו בני יהודה i.e. "inasmuch as all of Israel has to mourn on account of what happened to the Temple and to look forward with fervent hope to the coming of the Messiah." We have a parallel for this in the Talmud where Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi was asked by the Messiah if the Israelites were truly aware of his pain and were sick on his account. The Zohar in Parshat Beshalach (55:2) comments on Isaiah 52,8: קול צפיך נשאו קול….בשוב ה׳ ציון, "the voice of those who wait for you raise their voice (still further)." Here too the expression ויהיו means that all the families are saddened, שלה, on account of the Messiah who has not yet come. When the verse continues speaking of משפחת השלני, "the family of Shelah," this refers to the generation in whose time Shelah (Messiah) will appear. That whole generation will then be called by the name of the Messiah in commemoration of that event.

 Or HaChaim goes on to speak of others aspects of Moshiach coming from the tribe of Yehuda, and even goes into calculating when Moshiach will come (time has proven his calculations incorrect, as Moshiach has not come by the time he indicated). 

 The main takeaway is that the Torah carries hints in it to future times and places, and even a seemingly innocuous and inconsequential namedrop can have ramification far beyond what the simply understanding tells us, or seems to lead us. 

 May we be blessed to see through the allusion and come to clear understanding. And may the blessing given in the mentioning of Er and Onan and Shelah bring about the final conclusion of which Or HaChaim speaks. Just because his calculations were off does not mean we should give up or drop the hope that the final redemption will be coming. It may not be here yet, but it is on its way – may we merit to see and experience it speedily in our days.