June 4, 2023|ט"ו סיון ה' אלפים תשפ"ג Did the Nesi-im Quote Tweet or ReTweet? By Rabbi Jonathan Muskat

Social media has a lot of advantages to it, but as we know there are a lot of drawbacks to it. For example, doyou know what the opposite of social media is? Social life. There are rumors that one day YouTube, Twitter and Facebook will merge. The new social media platform will be called YouTwitFace. But this morning I want to speak specifically about Twitter and the first thing as Jews that we need to know about Twitter is the Golden Rule: "v-ahavta l'rei-acha kamocha," or Tweet others the way you want to be tweeted.

But the truth is the real Twitter question that I’d like to address today is whether the nesi-im ReTweeted or Quote Tweeted?When do you ReTweet and when do you Quote Tweet? First of all, what’s the difference between ReTweeting and Quote Tweeting? If you are on Twitter and someone posts something on that platform, called a Tweet, then when you ReTweet, you share the Tweet to your followers without adding any comment or words to the actual Tweet. Essentially, you keep the original Tweet and concept Tweeted by the user. On the other hand, re-sharing the Tweet with an added comment is called Quote Tweet. If you think that the original content would be of interest to your followers as is and you have nothing to add to it, then you ReTweet. However, a Quote Tweet allows you to respond and add your unique perspective to the ReTweet. What did our nesi’im, the leaders of the tribes in the desert, do at the end of this week’s parsha. Did they ReTweet or Quote Tweet?

What do the nesi-im do at the end of the parsha? They inaugurate the mizbai’ach, the altar that was built. How do they inaugurate it? By offering every type of sacrifice on it. They bring a mincha, an olah, a shlamim, and a chatat, and they offer ketoret. Now some of these offerings are voluntary offerings, but how could they offer a chatat or the ketoret, the sin offering and the incense? These aren’t voluntary offerings! Ramban tells us that it’s okay. It was an exception. These were inaugural sacrifices that the nesi-im voluntarily brought. Now God agreed with their plan, but He made one condition. He said, “nasi echad la-yom nasi echad la-yom yakrivu et korbanam” – let them bring their offerings, but let each nasi bring his offering on a separate day (Bamidbar 7:11).

Then the Torah lists what each nasi offered on each day and it turns out that each offering is the same. The Torah lists what the first nasi brought on day one and then the Torah lists what the second nasi brought on day two and it’s a replica of day one and then the Torah lists what the third nasi brought on day three and it’s a replica of day one and day two. This happens for twelve days and the meforshim, the commentaries, ask the same question that they ask on the story when Avraham’s servant looks for a wife for Yitzchak and the story of the building of the mishkan: why the repetition? The Torah describes how Avraham’s servant eventually finds Rivka by the well as the appropriate shidduch for Yitzchak and then the Torah essentially repeats the story almost word for word when the servant tells what happened to Rivka’s family. Similarly, Hashem commands Moshe to build every aspect of the mishkan in full detail in Parshiyot Teruma and Tetzave, and then in Parshiyot Vayakhel and Pekudei the Torah describes how the Bnei Yisrael constructed every aspect of the mishkan in full detail instead of just saying that they built the mishkan as they were commanded by God. The mefarshim ask in these cases, why did the Torah repeat essentially the same text instead of summarizing it and they give their answers in these instances. That’s a question that we need to ask here, as well. Why not simply say that Nachshon, the first nasi, brought his offerings on day one and the following nesi’im brought the identical offerings on days two through twelve?

But I have a more basic question, a factual question. What actually happened? We know that the nesi-im volunteered to bring offerings and God told them that they must bring offerings on separate days and they brought identical offerings on different days. So here’s my question.

What was the initial plan and what ended up happening? I remember during COVID that at various times the rabbis of the Southshore OU shuls met virtually to set forth a uniform policy on various issues relating to shul policy and COVID and we jointly prepared a draft of the letter we were going to send to our communities to go out simultaneously.

Was that the plan here? Did all the nesi-im get together and decide what offerings they would bring on the same day and then God intervened and said that it’s not respectful to have all the nesi’im bring their offerings on the same day so each brought offerings on separate days? That’s one way that the Ramban understands what happened (7:3).

But I think we could read the text as saying that all the nesi-im wanted to bring sacrifices and God told them that everyone should bring them on separate days. What happened? Nachshon brought his sacrifices on day one and on the next day Netanel ben Tzu’ar, the second nasi, Quote Tweeted Nachshon’s sacrifices, meaning he brought identical sacrifices. He copied Nachshon, but he Quote Tweeted. He added his own unique contribution. What was his own unique contribution? He had his own ideas and his own thoughts regarding why he brought what he brought. In fact, all the nesi-im brought the exact same sacrifices, but all for different reasons. I like what you did, Nachshon, but here are the reasons why I’m bringing these sacrifices. This is another way that the Ramban explains what happened and this is based on a midrash in Bamidbar Rabba (13:14). This approach can serve as a paradigm for much of our halacha when we are all committed to observe identical mitzvot but within each mitzvah that we perform, we are encouraged to seek personal meaning and expression. For example, we are all required to recite the same words of tefilla, but my thoughts during my tefilla are different than your thoughts during your tefilla. I will share your Tweet because I like what you posted, but I will Quote Tweet. I will add my unique perspective.

But that’s pretty unbelievable, that each nasi miraculously came up with the exact same offering as every other nasi but it was based on a different reason. What if instead of a Quote Tweet, the nesi-im two through twelve simply ReTweeted Nachshon’s offering. What if they initially wanted to bring their offerings and God said that everyone has to bring an offering on a separate day and when Netanel ben Tzu-ar, the second nasi, saw what Nachshon ben Aminadav had brought, he ReTweeted it. He simply copied it, without any new personal perspective about the sacrifice.

What’s my goal with the Quote Tweet and what’s my goal with the ReTweet? When I Quote Tweet, I like what you did, but I am infusing my personality on what you did. I am adding my subjective interpretation on your content. When I ReTweet, do you know what I am doing? I am not just liking or appreciatoing your Tweet, but I completely identify with your perspective and I help to create a bond and a sense of community with you. ReTweeting Nachshon’s offering for the next eleven days created a sense of achdut, a sense of unity among the leaders of the nation, and it’s no coincidence that immediately after these offerings the Torah tells us that God once again began to speak to Moshe from inside the mishkan. After all, at Sinai, the Bnei Yisrael expressed the unity of “vayichan sham Yisrael neged ha-har” – they encamped by the mountain and Rashi explains, “k’ish echad b’lev achad.” They were unified as one. This unity is a precondition to bringing God into our lives.

The real beauty of the nesi-im, then, is how each one supported each other’s religious journey and religious expression. Sometimes we want to add our own chiddush, our own uniqueness, and that’s wonderful because we were all created differently. But maybe the story of the nesi-im is teaching us about the power of the ReTweet, about how we in our own community can support others in their religious quest by joining them. We all have different portals of religious entry. Certainly the recent shift towards personalized spirituality has impacted the way religious communities are formed and sustained. Religious communities are no longer homogeneous; they consist of individuals with unique spiritual backgrounds and evolving beliefs. Despite this personalized spirituality, people yearn for communities that respect individualized paths and provide a supportive environment. We may think that embracing this mindset of ReTweeting, copying and joining the religious journeys of others may not be authentic to our own personal journey. That may be true, but joining a friend when he or she starts a new learning or chesed or other mitzva initiative as a form of support does something even more powerful. It creates communities of religious growth around mitzvot and midot tovot. Ultimately, that is when we merit bringing God into our midst.