Parashas Naso: The True Meaning of Shivim Panim la'Torah

Originally published in June 2013. Note that this was the precursor of my other posts about pshat vs. drash, and contains some repetition of material. 

Picture of the mizrak (silver basin), courtesy of http://templeinstitute.org

Parashas Naso: The True Meaning of Shivim Panim la'Torah

The phrase “shivim panim la'Torah” – literally, “there are seventy faces to the Torah” – is frequently cited in order to authorize the coexistence of mutually exclusive interpretations. Some people invoke shivim panim to express such sentiments as “all opinions are equally valid.” Does this conventional usage reflect the true meaning of shivim panim la’Torah, or did Chazal have something else in mind? 

The source of shivim panim la’Torah is an enigmatic midrash on Parshas Naso. The Torah recounts the identical contributions made by the leaders of each tribe at the inauguration of the Mishkan. The midrash expounds on the offering of Nesanel ben Tzuar in particular. It states that Nesanel ben Tzuar “made an offering to represent the Torah, because the members of his tribe loved the Torah more than any of the other tribes.” [1] The midrash then goes on to show how each and every component of his offering symbolizes a different feature of Torah.

One of the items donated by Nesanel ben Tzuar was “one silver basin (mizrak) of seventy shekels in the sacred shekel” (Bamidbar 7:19). The midrash explains the significance of this basin as follows:

One silver basin represents the Torah which has been likened to wine, as it is stated, "And drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Mishlei 9:5). Now because it is customary to drink wine in a basin – as you may gather from the text, "They who drink wine in basins" (Amos 6:6) – therefore, he brought a basin. Why "of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary"? As the numerical value of yayin (wine) is seventy, so there are shivim panim la’Torah.

The question is: What insight is the midrash trying to teach us? The midrash is very cryptic and doesn't elaborate on the meaning of shivim panim la’Torah. What are we supposed to learn from the comparison between wine in a silver wine basin and the Torah’s “seventy faces”?

In my search for an answer to this question, I came across a curious discovery: whenever the Rishonim [2] apply the principle of shivim panim la’Torah, they apply it exclusively to drash – not to pshat. I believe this is an essential clue to decoding the midrash, but first, let us review the distinction between pshat and drash.

In his introduction to the Aseres ha’Dibros, Ibn Ezra writes: “words are like bodies and meanings are like souls, and the body to the soul is like a vessel.” That is to say, the words of a pasuk serve as the vehicle by means of which the meanings are conveyed. Ralbag, in his introduction to Shir ha’Shirim, utilizes this distinction as the basis for defining pshat and drash. According to Ralbag, “pshat” refers to the meaning that the author [3] intended to convey through the words of the pasuk. “Drash,” on the other hand, is a homiletic device in which the words of a pasuk are used as a platform to teach an extrinsic idea – an idea which may or may not bear any relation meaning intended by the author [4]. 

In light of this distinction, we can now understand the meaning of shivim panim la’Torah in the midrash and we can also explain why the Rishonim apply the principle of shivim panim la’Torah to exclusively to drash and not to pshat. According to our midrash, it is not the content of the vessel (i.e. the “wine of Torah”) which has shivim panim, but the vessel itself (i.e. the words of the Torah’s pesukim). This is an important feature of the Torah’s beauty and perfection. In books authored by human beings, the words convey pshat and nothing more. In the case of the Torah, however, not only do the words of the pesukim teach fundamental ideas on a pshat level, but they also double as a platform for teaching countless valuable ideas by way of drash. 

Now we can truly appreciate the beauty of the idea about Torah that Nesanel ben Tzuar expressed through his donation of the silver basin. Moreover, we can now understand the subtlety of the Rishonic application of shivim panim la’Torah, in contrast to the conventional usage. 

[1] Bamidbar Rabbah 13:15-16 

[2] Sefer ha’Chinuch: Mitzvah #95; Ibn Ezra: Introduction to Torah; Ramban: Bereishis 8:4; Sefer Maharil: Likkutim 77; Shailos u’Tshuvos ha’Radvaz 3:643; Shiltei ha’Giborim: Avodah Zarah daf 6a b’dapei ha’Rif. If anyone finds instances of shivim panim la’Torah in the Rishonim which are not in the context of drash, please send them my way! 

[3] To be precise, we should use the term “Author” (with a capital “A”) when referring to Chumash, and “author” (with a lowercase “a”) when referring to the rest of Nach. 

[4] For example, the Torah says: “The woman [Yocheved] conceived and bore a son, and she saw that he was good” (Shemos 2:2). Ibn Ezra gives the pshat of the pasuk, namely, that Yocheved saw that her newborn child looked good. Chazal, on the other hand, expound on the pasuk by way of drash: “The entire house became filled with light when he was born, for it is written here ‘and she saw that he was good’ and it is written elsewhere ‘And God saw that the light was good’ (Bereishis 1:4).” This idea, while valuable in and of itself, is extrinsic to the meaning of the pasuk itself, and does not necessarily reflect the pshat.