20 Years Old?
Why are people (for a census or military service) counted from the age of 20 and upward? Why not from, say, the age of bar mitzvah?
Is there any deeper meaning to the number “20” in the Torah?
Could it be understood by the way the number is used elsewhere in the text?
This twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten. … Thus have I been twenty years in thy house; I served thee fourteen years for thy two daughters, and six years for thy cattle.
What can we make of the use of the number here? Is Jacob arguing that 20 years is a number for completion of this stage in his life?
And might it matter that Jacob uses the number to connect to his work on behalf of someone else, Lavan?
The number 20 is also used when Jacob reaches out to attempt to invest back into Esau: He gives (among other things), twenty each of he-goats, rams, and she-asses.
The boards of the tabernacle also number 20 for each length – forming the critical enclosure that enables G-d’s presence to dwell among – to invest in – the people.
Does this suggest that 20 represents the age at which a person is able to start investing into others: family, society, and country? Just as G-d uses that number to invest in the Jewish people through the mishkan?
Does it matter that those who are younger than 20 years old at the crisis of the meraglim, spies, are not considered responsible for the actions of the populace as a whole? That those under the age of 20 are essentially legally treated as juveniles, suffering little or no consequences for their actions?
Firstborns?
All the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Miżrayim I hallowed to me all the firstborn in Yisra᾽el, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.
Why does G-d even want the firstborns?
Isaac is not the firstborn – Ishmael is. Jacob is not the firstborn – Esau is. Reuven is the firstborn, but Joseph and then Yehuda end up with the actual leadership roles. Chronologically, Egypt came before Israel, so if being older is what matters, then the Jews should not be the chosen people! G-d seems to consistently favor anyone but the firstborn!
So … why does G-d claim them?
Might it be connected to the first time the shoresh, bikkur, is found in the Torah? When Hevel brings from the first of his flock? Not because they are the fattest or strongest or tastiest: but only because they are the very first?
Does Hevel’s offering show some connection to the underlying purpose of sacrifices as described in the Torah: we give to G-d because the giving of gifts, done properly, is more instructive and meaningful for the giver than for the recipient?
If so, then perhaps G-d does not want the firstborns at all – perhaps what He really wants is for us to acknowledge that it is G-d who grants us the power to be creative in every respect? And our firstborn, like the first fruits, help us understand our partnership role, and to whom we owe gratitude for the capabilities we are blessed with?
If this is true, then is it possible that the Levites are replacements for the firstborn because they actually multiply the educational message? After all, if the firstborns are important because of the lesson we learn from giving them, then perhaps the Levites are preferred to firstborns because the Levites become the teachers for all the people, able to spread and reinforce the messages of the Torah much better than had our firstborns been dedicated to service?
In other words, does G-d choose the Levites in place of firstborn because teachers throughout the populace would teach us these lessons even more effectively?
Doesn’t this suggest that G-d’s commands are really all about guiding and teaching us Torah?
The Color Blue
and when the camp sets forward, Aharon shall come… and cover the ark of testimony with it: … and they shall put on it the covering of taĥash skins, and shall spread over it a cloth wholly of blue, and shall put in its poles. And upon the table of showbread they shall spread a cloth of blue… And they shall take a cloth of blue, and cover the candlestick of the light, and its lamps, and its tongs, and its pans, and all its oil vessels, with which they minister to it: … And upon the golden altar they shall spread a cloth of blue, and cover it with a covering of taĥash skins, and shall put in its poles. … And they shall take all the instruments of ministry, with which they minister in the sanctuary, and put them in a cloth of blue, and cover them with a covering of taĥash skins, and shall put them on a bar:
So basically, when in motion, in the public eye, the entire Mishkan is identified with techelet, blue. Why specifically when packed up for travel?
Could it because the symbolism of this color (waters above/below – aspiring to the heavens) is a teaching moment for the people even just visually?
Is it significant that the color green is not found at all – that the color chosen instead, blue, is extremely rare in nature besides the sea and skies?