Naso: Twelve Identical Offerings

Why does the Torah repeat the twelve identical offerings in Parashas Naso? This article explores a peshat answer, two midrashim, and their methodology.

Jun 06, 2025

Article voiceover

1×

0:00

-14:23

Summer is almost here, and I’m planning to level up my Substack game. In addition to my weekly article on the parashah, I’ve got a ton of other topics I want to write about, many of which are experimental (or spicy) enough to keep behind the paywall. I’m looking for sponsors and I'm willing to offer an insane deal: for every WEEK of Torah content you sponsor, I’ll comp you a full YEAR of paid subscriber access to my Substack. This offer is good through the end of June or until all my summer content is sponsored, whichever comes first.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Naso: Twelve Identical Offerings

The Question

Without a doubt, the strangest part of Parashas Naso is its conclusion. Bamidbar Chapter 7 opens by establishing the narrative context:

And it happened on the day Moshe finished setting up the Mishkan (Tabernacle) that he anointed it and consecrated it and all its furnishings, and he anointed them and consecrated them. And the leaders of Israel—the heads of their fathers’ houses, they are the leaders of the tribes, they are the ones who stand over the reckoning—brought forward and set their offering before Hashem … And the leaders brought forward the dedication offering of the altar on the day it was anointed, and the leaders brought forward their offering for the dedication of the altar. And Hashem said to Moshe: “One leader each day, one leader each day, shall offer his offerings for the dedication for the altar.” (Bamidbar 7:1-2, 10-11)

The first of these offerings is then described in detail:

And the one who brought forward his offering on the first day was Nachshon ben Aminadav of the tribe of Yehudah. And his offering was one silver bowl, a hundred thirty shekels its weight, one silver basin, seventy shekels by the sanctuary shekel, both of them filled with fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering. One golden ladle of ten shekels filled with incense. One bull from the herd, one ram, one yearling lamb for the burnt offering. One goat for an offense offering. And for the communion sacrifice two oxen, five rams, five he-goats, five yearling lambs. This is the offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav. (ibid. 7:12-17)

That’s when things start to get repetitive. The Torah goes on to describe the offering brought on the second day by the second tribal leader, Nesanel ben Tzuar. It is identical to the first and spelled out in exactly the same words. The Torah continues this pattern with the third, fourth, and fifth tribal leaders—each bringing the same offering, described in the same terms—all the way up to the twelfth. It's as if Moshe Rabbeinu took those same six pesukim, with the same 66 words, copied and pasted them eleven more times, then went back and changed only the name of the tribal leader and the ordinal designation of the day.

This seemingly gratuitous repetition has puzzled both medieval and modern commentators. The Abravanel (ibid. 7, question #8) raises the issue explicitly:

Why did the text mention the offering of each leader with detailed specificity, even though their offerings were identical without any variation? It would have sufficed to say, regarding the first—“This was the offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav,” for example—and then, day by day, simply state, “And so-and-so offered on such-and-such day,” rather than writing the same thing twelve times. This is an extreme redundancy and quite a strange thing.

The modern translator and commentator Robert Alter (The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, pp. 716-717) also highlights this anomaly:

This is the one single instance in the entire Bible of extensive verbatim repetition without the slightest variation … Biblical narrative, as we have had many occasions to see, characteristically deploys significant swerves from verbatim repetition as it approximately repeats strings of phrases and whole clauses and sentences. This passage, however, is manifestly not narrative, but a kind of epic inventory.

Put simply, the question is: why does the Torah repeat the list of twelve identical offerings verbatim, when it could have stated them once?

Thanks for reading The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack! This post is public so feel free to share it.

The Simple Answer

The most straightforward explanation, offered by several commentators, is that the Torah wanted to emphasize the complete equality of the leaders and their offerings, for them and for us. The Bechor Shor (ibid. 7:11) explains that this is why each leader was given his own day and why his offering was recorded in detail, even though all the offerings were identical:

“one leader each day”—this was in order to give honor to the leaders, so that each one would have his own day. Likewise, a separate section was written for each one, so that they would not become jealous of one another, for it could have written only the first section, and then said, “So did so-and-so,” and “So did so-and-so.”

The Ramban (ibid. 7:13) offers a similar explanation:

The truest explanation for why Scripture states each leader’s offering individually is that HaKadosh Baruch Hu gives honor to those who fear Him, as it says: “for I honor those who honor Me” (I Shmuel 2:30). All the leaders brought this offering—on which they had all agreed—on the same day, but it was impossible that no one would precede his fellow. Hashem therefore honored those who were earlier in the camp arrangements by giving them precedence in the order of days. Yet He still wanted to mention each one by name, detail each offering, and designate each man’s day, rather than honoring only the first—saying “This was the offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav” and then continuing, “And so all the leaders offered, each man on his day”—because that would have diminished the honor of the others. Afterwards, He summed them all together to teach that they were equal before Him, may He be blessed. And thus the Sages said in the Sifrei (Bamidbar 7:84): “Scripture teaches that just as they were equal in their joint decision, so were they equal in merit.”

Alter (ibid.) also favors this interpretation, describing the Torah’s intended rhetorical effect as follows:

Each of the tribes, here accorded absolutely equal status before the sanctuary without political hierarchy, brings exactly the same offering. One can readily imagine that the members of each tribe in the ancient audience of this text would be expected to relish the sumptuousness of its own tribal offering exactly equal to all the others, as it hears the passage read. [1]

Yet as reasonable as this objective may be, was it truly necessary to “waste” 726 extra words simply to convey the equality of the tribal leaders? Surely the Torah could have communicated the same idea more succinctly. For example, Chazal interpret the Torah’s terse statement, “and the sons of Yaakov were twelve” (Bereishis 35:22) in order “to teach that all of them are equal” (Rashi on Bereishis 35:22, paraphrasing Shabbos 55b). Likewise, on the verse: “they are Aharon and Moshe” (Shemos 6:26), Rashi (ibid.) observes that “in some places Moshe precedes Aharon and in other places Aharon precedes Moshe in order to convey their equality.”

So too here: the Torah could have stated the contents of the identical offerings and framed them in a manner which would have conveyed the equality of the tribal leaders.

Two Midrashic Approaches

The Abravanel (Bamidbar 7:12) notes that midrashic literature offers two categories of explanations:

In Bamidbar Rabbah (13:14), they expound on the phrase “and his offering” differently. They said: “What prompted the leaders to bring their offerings in this specific manner? The Rabbis say: although the offerings were identical, each one offered his with great underlying meaning, each according to his own understanding.” Similarly, Rabbi Shimon expounded: “What does the verse mean by saying, ‘from the leaders of Israel’? This teaches that they donated of their own accord.” The result was that all the offerings were equal in their value, quantity, and weight. The intent is that each leader was personally inspired to offer the items listed in the verse, in accordance with his individual intention, to allude to the ideas he had in mind.

The midrash then elaborates on the symbolic meaning of each leader’s offering. For example, the tribe of Yehudah, associated with malchus (kingship), intended each detail of its offering to reflect ideas about monarchy. The tribe of Yissachar, known for Torah scholarship, used each detail to allude to themes of Torah. And so it continues for the other ten tribes. After paraphrasing [2] each tribe’s symbolism, the Abravanel concludes:

The general conclusion of their view is that each of the leaders brought his offering in accordance with his own intention, which differed from the intention of the other leaders. As a result, the offerings were identical, but the intentions behind them were distinct.

Next, the Abravanel cites an opposing view from the same midrash:

However, Pinchas ben Yair held that all the leaders shared a single intention and a unified allusion in their offerings, namely, that they corresponded to the generations from Adam HaRishon until the construction of the Mishkan.

For example, the first item in the offering was “one silver bowl (kaaras kesef), a hundred and thirty shekels its weight.” The phrase kaaras kesef has a numerical value of 930, representing Adam ha’Rishon, who lived 930 years. The fact that there was only one such bowl represents Chavah, since she was created from Adam. Its weight of 130 shekels represents the 130 years Adam separated from Chavah before they reunited and had their third son. The second item was “one silver basin (mizrak echad), seventy shekels by the sanctuary shekel.” The term mizrak (from Z.R.Q., “to throw”) represents Noach, who was “thrown out” of the Generation of the Flood. Its weight of 70 shekels corresponds to the 70 nations that emerged from him. And so the pattern continues.

Although I generally favor peshat, I find both midrashic approaches more satisfying than the peshat explanations cited earlier. If these offerings were intended to convey ideas through the symbolism of their particulars, then the Torah’s decision to emphasize those particulars is a powerful way to direct our attention. According to the first approach, each offering is restated in full because each detail carries unique conceptual meaning. According to the second, the repetition serves to highlight the unanimity of the leaders in their shared intent.

The Methodological Underpinnings of These Midrashic Approaches

No matter how appealing these symbolic interpretations may be, one cannot help but wonder: How did the authors of these midrashim know what the tribal leaders intended to symbolize in their offerings?

For those who believe that midrashim were given at Sinai, along with the rest of the Torah she’baal Peh (Oral Torah), the answer is simple: mesorah (oral tradition). But for those who follow the mainstream view—that midrashim reflect the views of their authors—the answer is even simpler: the authors didn’t know the leaders’ intentions. These midrashim express their own speculative theories, which may or may not align with what the tribal leaders actually intended.

This attempt to find meaning in the leaders’ offerings is reminiscent of an approach mentioned by the Rambam, who maintains that every person should seek out the reasons for the mitzvos of the Torah. This applies to both categories of mitzvos: mishpatim, whose reasons are evident, and chukim, whose reasons are hidden. At the end of Hilchos Me’ilah (8:8), the Rambam writes:

It is proper for a person to contemplate the laws of the Holy Torah and to understand their ultimate purpose (sof inyan) to the extent of his ability. If he cannot find a reason (taam) or identify a cause (ilah) for a particular law, it should not be diminished in his eyes. He must not push to ascend toward Hashem, lest He burst forth against him, nor should he regard it as he would any mundane matter.

In this passage, the Rambam speaks of finding the cause of the chukim—the actual reasons they were commanded. By contrast, at the end of Hilchos Temurah (4:13) he writes:

Even though all the chukim of the Torah are [Scriptural] decrees, as we explained at the end of Hilchos Me'ilah, it is proper to contemplate them; anything for which you can give a reason (taam), you should give a reason. The Early Sages said that Shlomo ha’Melech understood the majority of taamim for all of the chukim of the Torah.
All of these matters [in Hilchos Temurah] are to subdue man’s inclination and to correct his character traits. And the majority of the laws of the Torah are but counsels from afar, from the Great Counselor, to correct [our] character traits and to make all [of our] actions upright. Likewise, it is written: “Surely, I have written for you extremely noble things, with counsel and knowledge, to teach you the veracity of true words, so that you may answer words of truth to those who send word to you” (Mishlei 22:20-21).

Here, the Rambam does not speak of finding the actual cause (ilah) of the chukim. Instead, he states: “anything for which you can give a reason (taam), you should give a reason.” In other words, whereas Hilchos Me’ilah encourages us to search for the true reasons behind the mitzvos, Hilchos Temurah advocates for ascribing meaning to the mitzvah’s structure in order to transform it from an incomprehensible ritual into “counsels from afar, from the Great Counselor, to correct our character traits and make all our actions upright.” Whether or not these explanations reflect Divine intent is beside the point. What matters is that they render the mitzvah a vehicle for perfection.

If we view Chazal’s interpretations of the tribal offerings as attempts to uncover the actual intentions behind the mitzvah—as in Hilchos Me’ilah—we might be justifiably skeptical. How could the midrashic authors have known the tribal leaders’ intent with such precision? But if we understand these midrashim in the spirit of Hilchos Temurah, then the symbolic creativity becomes a feature, rather than a bug. The more strongly we can associate the details of these chukim with ideas of human perfection, the better.

These two approaches to taamei ha’mitzvos (reasons for the commandments) should be kept in mind whenever one encounters a theory about the structure of a mitzvah. It's easy to dismiss such explanations as speculative if we assume they aim to identify the cause of the mitzvah, in the spirit of Hilchos Me’ilah. But if we allow for Hilchos Temurah-type interpretations, homiletic creativity becomes an asset.

[1] Alter adds another explanation: “It is also well to remember that lists and the repetitions they entail constitute an established literary form with its own aesthetic pleasures – as, for example, in the catalogue of the ships in the Iliad or in the cumulative repetitive structures of songs like Had Gadya (‘An Only Kid’) and, more apposite to this catalogue of gifts, ‘On the Twelve Days of Christmas.’”

[2] In case you’re wondering about the themes of each tribe, here is the Abravanel’s summary: Zevulun’s is about his partnership with Yissachar; Reuven’s, about saving Yosef; Shimon’s, about the order of the Mishkan; Gad’s, about Amram and his descendants; Ephraim’s, about Yaakov’s blessings to Yosef’s sons; Menashe’s, about Yaakov’s transfer of the bechorah (firstborn) status from Reuven to Yosef; Binyamin’s, about the offspring of Rachel; Dan’s, about Shimshon; Asher’s, about Israel as Hashem’s Chosen People; and Naftali’s, about the Avos (patriarchs) and Imahos (matriarchs). As you can see, some of these themes are directly tied to the tribe’s identity, while others are only loosely connected—or not apparently connected at all.

Which of these explanations do you like the most? What other answers have you heard?

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Naso: Twelve Identical Offerings

Why does the Torah repeat the twelve identical offerings in Parashas Naso? This article explores a peshat answer, two midrashim, and their methodology.

Naso: Twelve Identical Offerings

The Question

The Simple Answer

Two Midrashic Approaches

The Methodological Underpinnings of These Midrashic Approaches

Discussion about this post