Daf Ditty Yoma 22: Census and Censure

1
2
MISHNA: Initially, the practice among the priests was that whoever wishes to remove the ashes
from the altar removes them. And when there are many priests who wish to perform that task,
the privilege to do so is determined by a race: The priests run and ascend on the ramp leading
to the top of the altar. Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the top
of the altar first is privileged to remove the ashes. And if both of them were equal and neither
preceded the other, the appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers, and a lottery
was performed, as will be explained.

3
And what fingers do they extend for the lottery? They may extend one or two fingers, and the
priests do not extend a thumb in the Temple. The reason is that the lottery was conducted by the
appointee choosing a number and counting the extended fingers of the priests standing in a circle.
As the count progressed, a priest could calculate and manipulate the result in his favor by
surreptitiously extending his thumb and an additional finger. Since there is separation between the
thumb and the forefinger it could appear as though they belonged to two different priests, skewing
the results of the lottery.

RASHI

Steinzaltz

4
5
6
Initially, that was the procedure; however, an incident occurred where both of them were equal
as they were running and ascending on the ramp, and one of them shoved another and he fell
and his leg was broken.

And once the court saw that people were coming to potential danger, they instituted that
priests would remove ashes from the altar only by means of a lottery.

There were four lotteries there, in the Temple, on a daily basis to determine the priests privileged
to perform the various services, and this, determining which priest would remove the ashes, was
the first lottery.

GEMARA: The Gemara questions the original practice of holding a race to determine which priest
would remove the ashes:

And what is the reason that the Sages did not initially institute a lottery for the removal of the
ashes as they did for other parts of the service? The Gemara answers:

Initially they thought: Since it is a service performed at night it would not be important to the
priests, and not many of them would come to perform it, so a lottery would be unnecessary.

Then, when they saw that many priests did indeed come and that they were coming to danger
by racing up the altar’s ramp, they instituted a lottery.

7
Steinzaltz

Jastrow

§ It was taught in the mishna that before the lottery was instituted, when there were many priests
who sought to perform the removal of the ashes, the first priest to reach within four cubits of the
top of the altar was privileged with performing the removal of the ashes. Rav Pappa said: It is

8
obvious to me that the four cubits the mishna is referring to are not the four cubits adjacent to the
ramp on the ground, because we learned in the mishna that the priests run and ascend on the
ramp, and not adjacent to the ramp. It is also not referring to the first four cubits from the foot of
the ramp, because we learned that the priests run and ascend on the ramp, and only afterward
it says: Any priest who precedes another and reaches within four cubits of the altar first,
indicating that the competition begins only once they have ascended the ramp to some extent.

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma based on the above clarification: Are the four cubits that they
stated, which are the four cubits adjacent to the altar, calculated including the cubit of the base
of the altar and the cubit of its ledge, as the ramp continues and overlaps these two cubits at the
top of the altar,

9
or are they perhaps calculated excluding the cubit of the base of the altar and the cubit of its
ledge? The altar’s edge can be considered to be at the end of the ramp, the point at which it meets
the altar, or it can be considered the point on the ramp that is directly over the external base of the
altar, which is two cubits away from the point where the ramp meets the altar. Which of these two
calculations is the correct one? Rav Pappa’s question remains unanswered, and the Gemara
concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

10
§ It was taught in the mishna that if both of them were equal and neither preceded the other, the
appointed priest says to all the priests: Extend your fingers [hatzbiu], and a lottery was
performed.

A tanna taught the meaning of the unusual term hatzbiu: Put out your fingers for a count. The
Gemara asks: Let him count the priests themselves directly, rather than counting their fingers.
The Gemara answers: This is a support for a teaching of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

It is prohibited to count Jews directly, even for the purposes of a mitzva, as it is written
concerning King Saul and his count of his soldiers:

‫ ִיְשָׂרֵאל‬-‫ ְבָּבֶזק; ַו ִיְּהיוּ ְבֵני‬,‫ח ַו ִיְּפְקֵדם‬ 8 And he numbered them in Bezek; and the children of
‫ִשׁים‬f‫ ְוִאישׁ ְיהוָּדה ְשׁ‬,‫שׁ ֵמאוֹת ֶאֶלף‬f‫ְשׁ‬ Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah
.‫ָאֶלף‬ thirty thousand.
I Sam 11:8

“And he numbered them with bezek”, meaning that he counted them through shards, one shard
representing each man, rather than counting them directly.

Rav Ashi strongly objects to this interpretation of the verse: From where do you derive that
this word bezek is a term related to the verb meaning to break apart, so that it means shards?
Perhaps it is the name of a town, and it means that Saul counted them in Bezek, as it is written:

11
 ,‫ ְבֶּבֶזק‬,‫ֲאֹד ִני ֶבֶזק‬-‫ ה ַו ִיְּמְצאוּ ֶאת‬5 And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek; and they fought
-‫ַהְכַּנֲﬠ ִני ְוֶאת‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ בּוֹ; ַוַיּכּוּ‬,‫ ַו ִיָּלֲּחמוּ‬against him, and they smote the Canaanites and the
.‫ַהְפּ ִרִזּי‬ Perizzites.
Jud 1:5

“And they found Adoni-bezek in Bezek” which shows that Bezek is the name of a place. The
Gemara answers: Indeed, the proof is not from that verse but from here, where it says:

‫ ַו ִיְּפְקֵדם‬,‫ָהָﬠם‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ָשׁאוּל‬ ‫ ד ַו ְיַשַׁמּע‬4 And Saul summoned the people, and numbered them in
‫ ָמאַת ִים ֶאֶלף ַרְגִלי; ַוֲﬠֶשֶׂרת‬,‫ ַבְּטָּלִאים‬Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand
.‫ִאישׁ ְיהוָּדה‬-‫ ֶאת‬,‫ֲאָלִפים‬ men of Judah.

I Sam 15:4

“And Saul summoned the people and numbered them by sheep” meaning that Saul tallied his
soldiers by having each one take a sheep and put it aside to represent him in the count.

Rabbi Elazar said: Whoever counts a group of Jews violates a negative mitzva, as it is stated:

,‫ ִיְשׂ ָרֵאל‬-‫ ְיהוָּדה וְּבֵני‬-‫ב ְו ִנְקְבּצוּ ְבֵּני‬ 2 And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall
‫ ְוָﬠלוּ‬,‫שׂמוּ ָלֶהם ר ֹאשׁ ֶאָחד‬ ָ ‫ ְו‬,‫ַיְחָדּו‬ be gathered together, and they shall appoint themselves
.‫ יוֹם ִיְז ְרֶﬠאל‬,‫ ִכּי ָגדוֹל‬:‫ָהָא ֶרץ‬-‫ִמן‬ one head, and shall go up out of the land; for great shall be
the day of Jezreel.
Hos 2:1

“And the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be
measured” Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse to be saying: Which may not be measured. Rav
Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One who counts a group of Jews in fact violates two negative
mitzvot, as it is stated in that verse: “Which cannot be measured and cannot be counted” (Hosea
2:1).

12
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan raised a contradiction: It is written in
this verse: “And the number of the children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea,”
suggesting that they will have a specific number, though it will be very large. On the other hand,
it continues and says: “Which cannot be measured and cannot be counted,” which means they
will not be countable at all. How can these two statements be reconciled?

It is not difficult: Here, in the second statement, it is referring to a time when the Jewish people
fulfill the will of God; then they will be innumerable. There, in the first statement, it is referring
to a time when the Jewish people do not fulfill the will of God; then they will be like the sand of
the sea, having a specific number. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said a different resolution in the name
of Abba Yosei ben Dostai: It is not difficult: Here, in the second statement, it is referring to
counting by the hand of man; the Jewish people will be too numerous to count by man. There,
in the first statement, it is referring to counting by the hand of God, and He will find that they are
like the number of the grains of the sand of the sea.

Summary

Raising the ashes

The Mishna says that originally, anyone who wanted to would raise ashes off the altar in the
morning, and if many wanted to, they would race to the top, and the one who reached 4 amos first
would win. If there was a tie, they would all have a lottery, in which each person would put out
one or two fingers, and an appointed kohen would count to a large number to choose who would
win. One time, two kohanim were racing up the ramp, and one pushed the other, making him fall
and break his leg.

When the court saw that this system was dangerous, they instituted that this service always be
assigned by lottery. This was the first of four lotteries each day. The Gemora explains that
originally the Sages thought that there wouldn't be many people vying for raising the ashes, since

13
they wouldn't value it as much, since it was a night time service. When they saw that people did
compete for it, they instituted a lottery.

The Gemora challenges this logic, since they did institute a lottery for burning the limbs and fats
on the altar, which was also done at night, but answers that it was the end of the day service. The
Gemora challenges this distinction, as raising the ashes is the start of the daytime service. The
Gemora proves this from Rabbi Yochanan, who says that if a kohen washed his hands and feet for
raising the ashes, he need not wash again, as he washed for the start of service.

The Gemora amends Rabbi Yochanan to say that he need not wash again, as he washed at the start,
for a service. Alternatively, the Gemora says that originally they thought that not many would give
up sleep to wake up early enough for raising the ashes.

The Gemora asks why they made a lottery for burning the limbs and fats, as that would require the
kohanim to give up sleep to stay up late. The Gemora answers that it is easier for someone to stay
up later than to wake up earlier. The Gemora challenges the Mishna's reason for the institution of
the first lottery from a braisa which says that the one who won the lottery for raising the ashes also
won the right to arrange the pyre and place the two logs of wood on top of it, implying that this
was the reason for instituting a lottery.

Rav Ashi explains that they first thought no lottery was necessary for the raising of the ashes, since
not many people would get up early. When they saw that people were competing for it, they
instituted a lottery, as our Mishna explains. However, once they instituted the lottery, people
stopped coming, since they didn't want to wake up early for only a chance at winning the service.
They therefore extended the lottery to include the right to set up the pyre, making it more attractive
to kohanim, and getting them to wake up early.

The Mishna stated that whoever was first to the 4 amos would win the right to
raise the ashes.

Rav Pappa says that these 4 amos are obviously not on the floor near the ramp, nor the first 4 amos
of the ramp, as the Mishna says they would run up the ramp. The 4 amos can't be somewhere in
the middle of the ramp, since no such region would be easily identifiable. Therefore, the 4 amos
must be next to the altar. However, Rav Pappa asks whether or not these 4 amos included the 2
amos of the base and the pathway on the altar's perimeter, which the ramp reached over. The
Gemora leaves this as an unresolved taiku.

Counting Jews

The Mishna stated that in the case of a tie, the appointed kohen would tell the kohanim to put out
their fingers. The Gemora cites a braisa which says that this was to count their fingers for the
lottery. The Gemora says that this counting by fingers and not by people supports Rabbi Yitzchak
who says that one may not count Jews directly.

14
Rabbi Yitzchak proves this from Shaul, who only counted the Jews bebazek – with shards of clay,
i.e., counting the pieces of clay taken from the Jews. Rav Ashi challenges this source, as perhaps
the word bebazek means he counted them in a place named bazek.

Rather, the Gemora explains that the source is another verse which states that Shaul counted them
using sheep. Rabbi Elazar says that if one counts Jews directly, he has transgressed a prohibition,
from the verse which states that the number of Bnai Yisrael will be like the sand of the sea, “which
will not be measured.” Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says that he transgresses two, as the verse
continues to say “, and will not be counted.”

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmaini cites Rabbi Yonasan, who raised a contradiction within this verse.
The first phrase compares Bnai Yisrael to the sand, which, while numerous, is finite, while the
second one states that they cannot be counted. He answered this contradiction by saying that the
first phrase refers to a time when they do not fulfill the will of Hashem, while the second is when
they do.

Rebbi cites Abba Yossi ben Dostai answering that a human cannot count them, but Hashem can.
Rav Nehilai bar Idi cites Shmuel saying that once someone is appointed a leader of the community,
he becomes wealthy, as we can see from Shaul, who first counted the Jews with clay and later with
sheep. The Gemora explains that the sheep must have been his, because otherwise it was irrelevant
what was used to count them.

Shaul and Dovid

The Gemora discusses Shaul's battle against Amalek. The verse says that Shaul arrived at the
Amalek city, and he fought in the valley. Rabbi Mani explains that Shaul was debating the justice
of destroying Amalek, citing an argument from the valley in which the egla arufa – calf whose
neck was severed was killed. Shaul argued that if the death of one person necessitated an atonement
with the egla arufa, surely killing a whole nation will need atonement.

Furthermore, if the people of Amalek are guilty, why are the animals also being killed? If the adults
are guilty, why are the children also being killed. A heavenly voice called out with the verse which
commands one not to be too righteous. When Shaul later commanded that the city of Nov be killed,
a heavenly voiced called out with the end of the verse, which commands one not to be very wicked.

Rav Huna says that one who Hashem helps need not worry about anything, as can be seen from
the contrast between Shaul and Dovid. Shaul did one sin, and was punished severely, while Dovid
did two, but was not punished.

The Gemora explains that although Shaul also killed Nov, he lost his kingdom once he didn't
complete the job of killing Amalek. The Gemora explains that the two sins of Dovid were causing
Uria to be killed and his being persuaded to count Bnai Yisrael at the end of his reign.

The Gemora asks why we don't count the sin of taking Bas Sheva, and answers that he was
punished for that. When he judged the parable given to him, he said that the punishment should be

15
fourfold, and he therefore was punished with the death of his first child with Bas Sheva, the death
of Amnon, the rape of Tamar, and the death of Avshalom.

The Gemora challenges this, as he also was punished for counting Bnai Yisrael. The Gemora
answers that this punishment was not on him, but on Bnai Yisrael, as they died from a plague. The
Gemora explains that for the sin of Bas Sheva he was punished directly, as Rav Yehuda cites Rav
saying that Dovid became a leper for six months, during which the Sanhedrin and Hashem's
presence left him. The Gemora asks why we don't count his sin of accepting gossip, when he
believed Tziva's claims about Mefiboshes, and answers that Rav Huna is following Shmuel, who
says that he didn't accept the gossip.

The Gemora adds that even according to Rav, who says he did accept the gossip, he was punished
for this, as a heavenly voice decreed that just as he split Mefiboshes's field, so his kingdom would
be split. The verse says that Shaul reigned when he was one year old.

Rav Huna explains that he was like a one year old, who had never experienced sin. Rav Nachman
bar Yitzchak challenged this, as perhaps the verse means that he was dirty like a child, who plays
in the mud. He then had a dream in which fearsome angels were scaring him, and he apologized
to the bones of Shaul. He had this dream again, and then correctly apologized to the bones of Shaul,
king of Israel.

Rav Yehuda cites Shmuel saying that Shaul's dynasty did not last, since there was nothing wrong
in his lineage.

PAYESOS" ON YOM KIPPUR

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Mishnah discusses the Payis, the drawing of the lots, that was performed each day in order to
select the Kohen who would perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. The Mishnah concludes that this
was the first of four Payesos performed during the day to select Kohanim for each part of the
Avodah. The following Mishnayos proceed to describe the other Payesos in brief.

A similar description of the Payesos is recorded in the Piyut of the Musaf Shemoneh Esreh of Yom
Kippur.

The words of the Mishnah and the Piyut imply that these Payesos were performed on Yom Kippur
just as they were performed on every other day. However, on Yom Kippur there was no need to
select Kohanim to perform the various Avodos, as the only one who was authorized to perform
the Avodah was the Kohen Gadol (Yoma 32b). Why, then, were Payesos performed on Yom
Kippur?

1
https://www.dafyomi.co.il/yoma/insites/yo-dt-022.htm

16
(a) The BA'AL HA'ME'OR writes that no Payis was performed on Yom Kippur. The Mishnah
mentions the Payesos only incidentally as part of its discussion of the Terumas ha'Deshen (20a),
which was the first Avodah the Kohen Gadol performed on Yom Kippur. The Ba'al ha'Me'or
asserts that the authors of the Piyutim erred in including the Payesos in the Yom Kippur prayers.
How, though, does the Ba'al ha'Me'or understand the Gemara earlier (12b) which makes reference
to "the belt that the Kohen Hedyot wears on Yom Kippur"?

If an ordinary Kohen (Kohen Hedyot) does not perform Avodah on Yom Kippur, how can he wear
the belt of the Bigdei Kehunah on Yom Kippur? Apparently, the Ba'al ha'Me'or understands that
the Gemara there refers to a Kohen Hedyot who decides to turn over an ember on the Mizbe'ach
with a poker ("Mehapech b'Tzinora"), an act which is not an obligatory part of the Avodah of the
day and which any Kohen may do, even on Yom Kippur. (TOSFOS YESHANIM 12b)

(b) TOSFOS (20b, DH Mishum) and the RAMBAM (Hilchos Avodas Yom ha'Kipurim 4:1)
explain that although all of the Avodos of the day must be performed only by the Kohen Gadol,
Avodos of the night may be performed by any Kohen. Therefore, a Payis was necessary to choose
a Kohen for the Terumas ha'Deshen, an Avodah performed before daybreak.

The Rishonim (TOSFOS RID to 29a and others) cite proof for this explanation from the Gemara
later (29b) which states that "when the watchman announced the break of dawn, the Kohen Gadol
would be taken to perform his Tevilah." This implies that before dawn of Yom Kippur the Kohen
Gadol was not required to serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

(c) The RITVA (12b) says in the name of the RAMBAN ("Rabeinu ha'Gadol") that mid'Oraisa
only the Avodos which are unique to Yom Kippur must be performed by the Kohen Gadol. All of
the regular Avodos which are done on all other days of the year, such as the Avodos of the Korban
Tamid, may be done on Yom Kippur by a Kohen Hedyot, although it is a greater Mitzvah for the
Kohen Gadol to perform them. The Rabanan enacted that the Kohen Gadol must perform all of the
Avodos on Yom Kippur, but they permitted a Kohen Hedyot to perform the ordinary Avodos when
the Kohen Gadol is weak. In such a situation, Payesos would be made on Yom Kippur to select
the Kohanim to do those Avodos. It is to those Payesos which the Mishnayos here refer.

(b) The RAMBAN (in Milchamos) argues that certain unique Avodos of Yom Kippur may be
performed by a Kohen Hedyot even l'Chatchilah. Accordingly, all four Payesos must be performed
on Yom Kippur to select Kohanim for those Avodos.

The Avodah of Terumas ha'Deshen (included in the first Payis) may be performed by a Kohen
Hedyot, since it is not an Avodah which must be done during the daytime of Yom Kippur.
Similarly, the Dishun of the inner Mizbe'ach (included in the second Payis) may be done by a
Kohen Hedyot because that Avodah may be done during the night. The Dishun of the Menorah
(also included in the second Payis) may be done by a Kohen Hedyot, because it is only a
preparatory Avodah (for the kindling of the Menorah), and it, too, may be performed at night. The
Avodah of the Machtah (with which coals are brought from the outer Mizbe'ach to the inner
Mizbe'ach), which is included in the third Payis, may be done by a Kohen Hedyot because it is
only a secondary part of the burning of the Ketores.

17
Finally, the fourth Payis on Yom Kippur selects the Kohen who will bring the limbs of the
previous day's Korban which had been placed on the ramp but not yet brought upon the Mizbe'ach
to be burned. Since this Avodah may be done at night, it may be performed on Yom Kippur by a
Kohen Hedyot. This is why the Mishnah here, and the Piyut of Musaf on Yom Kippur, discuss all
four Payesos.

The Ramban adds that a close examination of the Piyut reveals that, in its discussion of the
Payesos, the Piyut mentions only the lots drawn for the specific Avodos which the Ramban
enumerates.

Racing to Serve God

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:

There is a long-standing debate among the commentaries as to whether the Kohen Gadol
performed every part of the Temple service on Yom Kippur, or if other kohanim participated in
performing parts of the service that are not directly connected with the unique avodat Yom ha-
Kippurim (Day of Atonement service). T

he Ramban argues that the second perek of Massekhet Yoma, which begins on our daf, appears to
support the position that other kohanim were involved as well, since the entire discussion in the
perek revolves around how to choose which kohen will perform what part of the avodah. Others
argue that this is simply a discussion of the procedure that took place on other days, and it is
brought here as a tangent, since the last Mishna in the first perek discussed terumat ha-deshen, or
cleaning the ash off of the altar.

In any case, the Mishna on our daf teaches that there was a race every morning in the Temple, as
all of the kohanim interested in performing the terumat ha-deshen would line up and race up the
ramp to the top of the altar. The one who arrived first had the honor of cleaning the ash.

Initially, that was the procedure; however, an incident occurred where both of them were equal
as they were running and ascending on the ramp, and one of them shoved another and he fell
and his leg was broken. And once the court saw that people were coming to potential danger,
they instituted that priests would remove ashes from the altar only by means of a lottery. There
were four lotteries there, in the Temple, on a daily basis to determine the priests privileged to
perform the various services, and this, determining which priest would remove the ashes, was the
first lottery.

The Me'iri explains that this curious method of choosing the kohen, the race, stemmed from the
fear that no one would want to perform this particular avodah, as cleaning the ash from the altar
hardly seems to be a great honor. Nevertheless, other commentaries ask how such a contest could
be instituted in the Temple, a place where an atmosphere of solemnity should prevail. The Tosafot
Yeshanim explain that this wasn't a normal race. In fact, the kohanim were obligated to walk up
the ramp as they ordinarily did, placing heel in front of toe and again, heel in front of toe. The
kohen who succeeded in doing this most quickly in a dignified manner was crowned the winner
and rewarded with the opportunity to clear the altar to begin the day's Temple service.

18
As R. Yitzchak said: It is prohibited (1) to count Jews even for the sake of a Mitzvah, as it says,
“And he counted them with pot shards,” “And he counted them with sheep.” R. Elazar said: One
who counts Jews has violated a prohibition ... R. Nachman bar Yitzchak said: He has violated two
prohibitions.

Chasam Sofer (2) rules that it is prohibited to count Jews even in written form. He derives this
from the fact that Shaul HaMelech did not count the Jewish People by writing, as opposed to
verbalizing their number. Additionally, even when one counts Jews in a permitted fashion, e.g. by
counting pottery shards, sheep or fingers, nonetheless, it is permitted (3) only if there is a need,
like in the time of Shaul HaMelech and in the Beis HaMikdash.

According to some authorities (4) the prohibition applies even if the final count is an estimate
rather than exact numbers. For this reason there were Gedolim (5) who ruled that families in Israel
should not fill out census forms because of the prohibition against counting Jews. In light of these
halachos, there are those (6) who use pesukim that contain ten words (For example, ‘ ‫וכו עמך את‬
‫ )הושיעה‬when counting Jews, rather than using numbers.

19
 Race you!
RABBI ELLIOT GOLDBERG WRITES:2

It’s tempting to read the Talmud as history; the text certainly presents itself as a source for
understanding how things were. But it’s probably a safer bet to read it as a description of how the
rabbis want things to be.

Let’s take a look at our daf to explore this further. In the Temple, that huge compound devoted to
churning out all manner of sacrifices every day of the year, ashes could quickly pile up around
the altar and make a big mess. To keep things neat and clean, the ashes were cleared daily by any
priest who was willing to do it. So what happened if more than one priest was interested in the
job?

The priests race up the ramp leading to the top of the altar. The first priest who arrives
within four cubits (six feet) of the top of the altar is privileged to remove the ashes.

Thought God’s house was a place of constant solemn decorum? Apparently not. Not only did
the priests race right up the altar for the privilege of removing the ashes, they took it seriously. As
a result, this system worked — until it didn’t:

An incident occurred where both of them were equal as they were running up the ramp, and
one of them shoved another and he fell and his leg was broken.

Applying the principal “it’s all fun and games until someone breaks a leg,” a change was made:

Once the beit din (rabbinic court) saw that people were coming to potential danger, they
instituted that priests would remove ashes from the altar only by means of a lottery.

Instead of a race, the priests would now compete for the privilege of removing ashes through a
lottery. Not as much fun, but also not a lawsuit waiting to happen.

As you read these texts, did you notice who was making the decisions about the system for
determining which priest got to clear the ashes? If not, look back and check. In fact, if you have
the time, go back and review the mishnahs at the start of the tractate with this question in mind. If
you do, you’ll uncover an underlying assumption of the Talmud: the rabbis are in charge of the
Temple and they are responsible for preparing the high priest for his sacred duties on Yom Kippur.

This is a radical notion.

For much of the second Temple period, historians tell us, priests had both cultic and civic authority.
During the Hasmonean period (mid-second to mid-first century BCE) the descendants of the
Maccabees ruled as priest-kings, unifying political and religious authority. In the Roman period
that followed, the political power of the priesthood shifted to the Rome-appointed governor. While

2
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/yoma-22/

20
high priests served at the will of the local authority, the priesthood retained control of the Temple
and its rituals.

And the rabbis? While early rabbinic communities may have begun to emerge at this time, their
sphere of influence was small — it did not fully develop until well after the destruction of the
Temple.

It’s not unreasonable to assume (if any of this was in fact historical) that it would have been the
priests who decided to institute the race to the top of the ramp, and that it would have been priests
who changed the practice after the tragic death of one of their own.

By claiming authority over the Temple of the past, the rabbis cemented their own authority —
convincing people they were in charge way back when, was a way to strengthen their claim to be
in charge in the present. And, had the Temple been rebuilt in their day, they would be well-
positioned to run it. As we said at the start, while it’s tempting to read the Talmud as history, it’s
probably a safer bet to read it as a description of how the rabbis want things to be.

21
 The Prohibition against Counting Jewish People

Rabbi Avi Zakutinsky writes:3

“Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families
following their fathers’ houses; a head count of every male according to the
number of their names.”

Num 1:2
The above parsha describes the detailed census of the Jews in the desert. Counting Jews directly
is forbidden, as the Rambam writes (Tamid 4:4) that it is prohibited to conduct a census and to
count the Jewish people. This ruling is also codified by the Magen Avraham (156:2).

Reason for the Prohibition

`What is the reason for this prohibition? Rashi (Shmos 30:12) writes that the reason we refrain
from counting Jews is because one who conducts a census is in danger of afflicting a plague upon
those who were counted. The Anaf Yosef (Yoma 22a) explains that counting individuals creates a
possibility that they will be judged in the Heavenly court. He adds that this judgement has the
potential for having devastating effects, more so than any other judgement, because usually G-d
in His infinite kindness judges the Jewish people as a whole, rather than individually. This insures
that even if an individual is not acting righteous, as long as the “klal” (the Jewish nation) is
considered righteous, the individual will be judged as a tzaddik. However, when they are counted
as individuals, Jews become “separated” and are subject to individual scrutiny.

Sources for the Prohibition

There are primarily three sources for this issur; one from the Torah and two are found in the Navi:
1) In Sefer Shmos (30:12), Moshe Rabbeinu is commanded to count the Children of Israel by
collecting a half-shekel from each person in order so “there will be no plague among them when
they are counted.” As explained above, Rashi writes that the rationale for the prohibition against
census-taking is due to fear of the “evil eye” (Ayin Hara) and a plague. Indeed, the Gemara in
Brachos (62b) writes that Hashem told David Hamelech that He will make David stumble over a
matter that “school children” know, namely, that it is prohibited to count Jews. Here the Gemara
declares that even “school children” are aware of the prohibition of counting the Jewish people.
[The Gemara is referring to the census that Dovid Hamelech conducted which led to the death of
70,000 Jewish people (See Shmuel 2 chapter 24).]
2) The Mishna in Yoma (22a) outlines the procedures used to determine which Kohen is awarded
the privilege of performing the mitzvah of separating the ash from the Alter in the Bais Hamikdash.
The Mishna explains that in the event that there were too many Kohanim who wished to fulfill this
mitzvah, they would race to the top of the Alter to determine who would do the avodah. If it

3
https://outorah.org/p/27225/

22
resulted in a tie then the Temple administrator would count the kohanim by counting their fingers.
The Gemara (22b) writes that the fact that the fingers are counted and not the kohanim themselves
supports the teaching of R’ Yitzchak. As R’ Yitzchak taught, it is forbidden to count the children
of Israel through a head count, even for the purpose of a mitzvah. For it is written (Shmuel 1, 11:8),
in reference to the count that Shaul Hamelech made of his soldiers, “He counted them through the
pottery shards”.
3) The Gemara continues to cite the opinion of R’ Elazar that whoever counts the people of Israel
transgresses a negative commandment, as it is stated: “The Number of the Children of Israel will
be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted”. And Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak writes,
that he transgresses two negative commandments, for it is stated in that verse “which cannot be
(1) measured or (2) counted”.
Is the prohibition Biblical?

It would seem that the prohibition to conduct a census is Biblical in nature as the first source cited
above is a posuk in the Torah. Rashi seems to feel this way and therefore explains that Moshe
Rabbeinu was commanded to count the half-shekels and not the people themselves. The sefer Beer
Sheva also states that the issur is from the Torah and therefore wonders why the Rambam, Chinuch
and other Rishonim who list all the 613 mitzvos, do not count the prohibition of counting the
Children of Israel as one of the negative commandments.
Contrastingly, Rav Yeruchem Fishel Perlow zt”l (Sefer Hamitzvos Lerasag vol. 2, mitzvah 264-
265) explains that according to Rav Saadia Gaon and the Tashbetz the prohibition is actually
Rabbinic. He explains that Moshe Rabbeinu was allowed to count the Children of Israel as long as
they donate a half-shekel to protect themselves from plague. On a Biblical level there is no issur
of counting Jews as long as they donate a half-shekel to the Bais Hamikdash after the count. The
sole prohibition exists from Navi (Shaul Hamelech) and is Rabbinic in nature.

Conducting an unnecessary census

As cited above the Gemara in Yoma prohibits counting the Children of Israel even for the sake of
the mitzvah. However, one is permitted to count them in an indirect way such as counting their
fingers. Tosafos Rid (Yoma 22b) writes that it is only permitted to do so for the sake of a mitzvah.
However, conducting an unnecessary census is forbidden even if the method of counting is done
indirectly. A similar view is expressed by the Chida (Sefer Pesach Ainayim on Yoma).

Counting part of Klal Yisroel

Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi zt”l introduces a novel ruling. He feels that one can only transgress the
prohibition by counting all of Klal Yisroel. However, it is permitted to count a part of Klal Yisroel.
The opinion of the Mizrachi is seemingly problematic. In the case of Shaul Hamelech, he did not
wish to count all of the nation but rather just his soldiers, and yet he did not count them directly,
rather he counted pottery shards in their place. It is thus clear that there exists a prohibition to count
even a small fraction of Jews. In addition David Hamelech did not count the tribes of Binyamin
and Levi and he was still punished as if he counted all of Klal Yisroel. Even more still, the Kohanim
in the Bais Hamikdash were not counted directly even though they were only a margin of the

23
Jewish population. See, however, Yabia Omer C.M. 10:2 where Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l cites many
authorities who attempt to explain the opinion of the Mizrachi.

Assorted Halachos

1) The Kaf Hachaim (13:10) writes that one is permitted to count Jewish People in one’s mind
(b’machshava), as long as he does not count them audibly.
2) Chasam Sofer (cited by his son the Ksav Sofer Y.D. 106) is of the opinion that it is assur to
count written names as if it were done so orally. However, the Ralbag (cited by Rav Ovadia Yosef
zt”l in Shu”t Yabia Omer vol. 10 C.M. 2) writes that counting written names is permissible.

3) When counting ten men for a minyan, it is customary to use a Torah verse that contains ten
words instead of using numbers. The verse usually used is: “Hoshiah et amecha u’varech et
nachalatecha ur’em venas’em ad ha’olam.” See Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 15:3.

24
 May I Participate in the Census?

Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff writes:4

Counting Sheep

Why would someone count sheep when he is trying to stay awake?

Counting from a List

Is it permitted to count Jews by counting their names on a list?

4
https://www.yeshiva.co/midrash/17082

25
Ki Sissa or Hoshea?

The Gemara bases the prohibition to count the Jewish people from the opening words of this week's
Haftarah: And the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea that cannot be
measured and cannot be counted (Hoshea 2:1). Why does the Gemara attribute the prohibition to
a less obvious source in Hoshea, when there appears to be an obvious Torah source for this
prohibition, in the beginning of Parshas Kissa?

Analyzing the Sources in Chazal:

The Mishnah describes that in order to determine which kohen would be awarded the mitzvah of
removing ashes from the mizbei'ach, the kohanim extended their fingers, which were then counted.
The person in charge picked a number much greater than the assembled kohanim, and then counted
fingers until they reached the number. The kohen on whom the number landed performed the
mitzvah (Rashi ad loc.).

The Gemara asks why they didn't simply count the kohanim themselves, to which it answers that
it is prohibited to count Jews (Yoma 22b). Counting fingers is permitted; counting people is not
(Rambam, Hilchos Temidim 4:4). We are aware of one common application of this mitzvah: when
counting people for a minyan, one counts words of a ten-word pasuk rather than counting the
people directly (Sefer HaItim #174; Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 15:3).

Here is another application: to determine how many places one needs to set at a table, one should
not count heads, but one may count sets of legs (Shu"t Torah Lishmah #386).

The Gemara quotes three Biblical sources for this prohibition:

1. When the nation of Ammon threatened the Jewish community of Yaveish-Gilad, Shaul gathered
a large Jewish army and counted them in an indirect manner (Shmuel I 11:8). According to one
opinion in the Gemara, Shaul counted the members of his army by having each throw a piece of
broken pottery into a pile. Thus, we see that even to fulfill a mitzvah one may count Jews only in
an indirect manner.

2. Before attacking Amelek, Shaul gathered the Jewish people and had each person take a sheep
from Shaul's herds. By counting the sheep, he knew how many soldiers he had (Shmuel I 15:4, see
Rashi). Again we see that he used an indirect method to count them.

3. And the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea that cannot be measured
and cannot be counted (Hoshea 2:1). Taking the verse not only as a blessing, but as a
commandment, the Gemara derives a prohibition against counting the Jewish people.

Isn't the Torah a Clearer Source?

26
The obvious question is why does the Gemara not quote the pasuk in the Torah as a source for the
prohibition?
When you will take the headcount of the children of Israel according to their numbers, each man
should give atonement for his life to Hashem when counting them so that there is no plague as a
result of the counting. This is what whoever is counted should give: a half shekel (Shemos 30:12
-13).
This pasuk certainly implies that the only way one may count Jews is indirectly, by having each
one donate a half-shekel and then counting the coins. This seems to be the source how Shaul knew
that he should count the Jews the way he did. It is indeed odd that the Gemara quotes the incidents
of Shaul as the source for the prohibition, rather than Shaul's source, the Torah itself!
Before answering this question, I want to analyze a different point that we see in the pasuk. The
Torah says: each man should give atonement for his life to Hashem when counting them so that
there is no plague as a result of the counting. In the discussion of no other mitzvah does the Torah
say, "fulfill this commandment so that no plague results." Why suddenly does the Torah say this
in regard to this mitzvah?

Rabbeinu Bachya (ad locum) explains that when we count individuals, it causes the heavenly
tribunal to note all his deeds, and this may result in his being punished for his sins, which otherwise
would not be punished now.

Others explain the concern in terms of ayin hora. The Abarbanel, for example, explains that when
counting people by head the counting causes ill to enter through their eyes and mouth into their
body, whereas counting fingers does not cause the ayin hora to enter them. I leave to the reader to
decide whether he means in a physical way or a metaphysical one.

Why the Prophets?

So, indeed, if we see from the Torah itself that counting Jews is prohibited and potentially very
harmful, why did the Gemara base itself on verses of the Prophets?

The commentaries present several approaches to answer this question. Here is a sample of some
answers:

(1) The Gemara is proving that one may not count Jews even for the purpose of performing a
mitzvah, something that the Torah did not expressly say (Sfas Emes to Yoma ad loc.). However,
from the incidents of Shaul and the verse in Hoshea it is clear that one may not count Jews directly
even for the sake of a mitzvah.

(2) The Gemara needs to prove that we may not count even a small group of Jews, whereas the
pasuk in Ki Sissa may only be prohibiting counting the entire people (Mizrachi; Sfas Emes).

27
(3) The verse in Ki Sissa could mean that one may count the Jews in a normal census, but that
afterwards they all provide a half-shekel as an atonement to make sure that no one suffers (Makom
Shmuel, quoted by Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer 7:3). This last approach suggests that the verse When you
will take the headcount of the children of Israel according to their numbers be explained in the
following manner: When you take a regular census of the children of Israel, each man should give
atonement for his life to Hashem when counting them - after you conduct your census, each person
should provide a half-shekel to make sure no harm results. Indeed, the census could cause harm,
but that does not have to mean that the Torah prohibited it. However, the stories of Shaul and the
verse in Hoshea prove that the Torah prohibited counting Jews directly since Shaul counted the
people by counting sheep, rather than conducting a census and then having them all donate a half-
shekel as atonement.

(4) One can interpret the verse in Ki Sissa to mean that the generation of the Desert, who had
worshipped the eigel hazahav, the Golden Calf, was at risk and that counting them might cause a
plague (Maharsha to Yoma ad loc.; see also Ohr Hachayim to Shemos 30:2). However, one cannot
prove from Ki Sissa that there is an inherent prohibition or risk in counting Jews when they have
not violated such a grievous sin. However, the stories of Shaul or the verse in Hoshea prove that
one may not count Jews who did not violate serious prohibitions.

Thus, we see several possible ways to interpret why the Gemara did not consider the Torah source
as adequate proof to prohibit counting the kohanim in the Beis Hamikdash, but instead rallied
proof from later sources. As we will see shortly, there are actual distinctions in practical halacha
that result from these diverse explanations. But first, a different question:

Counting from a List

For the purposes of fulfilling a mitzvah, may one count Jews by listing their names, and then
counting their names? Is this considered counting people indirectly, since one is counting names
and not people, or is this considered counting the people themselves?

Advertizing Campaigns to help the Needy

The idea of having creative advertizing campaigns in order to generate tzedakah funds did not
originate with Oorah or Kupat Ha'ir. About 200 years ago, Rav Yisrael of Shklov, a major disciple
of the Vilna Gaon and an author of several scholarly Torah works (including Taklin Chadtin on
Yerushalmi Shekalim and Pe'as Hashulchan on the agricultural mitzvos), was organizing a
fundraising campaign for the Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael in which he wanted to link donors to
individual beneficiaries by listing the needy of Eretz Yisrael by name.

28
Rav Yisrael held that this involved no violation of the prohibition of counting Jews list since it
involved an indirect count of people by counting names on a list for the sake of fulfilling a mitzvah.
However, the Chasam Sofer disagreed, contending that counting names on a list is considered
counting people directly. Even though one is not looking at their faces when counting them,
counting people from a list is considered counting the person, and not counting their finger, leg,
half-shekel, lamb or pottery shard (see Koveitz Teshuvos Chasam Sofer #8; Shu"t Kesav Sofer,
Yoreh Deah #106). We will see shortly that this dispute exists to this day.

The Census

Is the State of Israel permitted to conduct a census of its population? Does an individual violate
the mitzvah by being a census taker, or by providing the census takers with his information?
This question was hotly debated by halachic authorities even when the pre-state Zionist
organizations began counting the Jewish population and continued with the censuses of the State
of Israel. Several reasons are provided by those who permitted taking a census, but the primary
ones being that knowing how to provide proper medical, educational, economic and safety
servicing for a large population requires knowing how many people there are.

These authorities accepted that this qualifies as a dvar mitzvah, and that counting by list, or via
computer and machine calculation is considered indirect counting (Shu"t Mishpatei Uziel 4:2;
Noam XV).

On the other hand, several prominent poskim prohibited taking the census or participating in it
(Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer 7:3). On the 27th of Iyar, 5732 (May 11, '72), the Steipler Gaon released a
letter stating the following:

In the coming days, there will be census takers counting the Jewish people. One should be careful
not to answer them at all, and to tell them that it is forbidden to take a census, and that there is the
possibility of a Torah violation, as explained in the Gemara Yoma 22 the Rambam in the fourth
chapter of Temidim and Musafim, and the Ramban in Parshas Bamidbar.

Furthermore, the Tosafos Rid in Yoma writes that it is prohibited to do so even indirectly when
there is no mitzvah accomplished. It is explained in Kesav Sofer... that it is prohibited to do so
even through writing. Furthermore, taking a census involves the possibility of danger."

At the same time the Beis Din of the Eidah Hachareidis also issued a letter prohibiting participating
in the census or answering any questions from the census takers, and reiterating that they had
previously banned this ten years before.

After publishing a responsum in which he prohibited participating in the census, the

Tzitz Eliezer (7:3) was subsequently asked whether someone calculating the numbers of people
who made aliyah may count how many people there are. He answered that for the purposes of a

29
mitzvah one may count indirectly. However, we should note that such figures are often counted
simply for curiosity or publicity, which the Tzitz Eliezer prohibits (22:13).

In a more recent responsum from Rav Vozner (Shu"t Shevet Halevi 9:35), dated Elul 24 5755
(September 19, '95) he writes that the heter of taking a census because of divrei mitzvah only
applies if the statistics are used only for divrei mitzvah, something that is not followed. However,
he permits the census for a different reason -- because they count the entire population of Israel
and not specifically the Jews. Furthermore, even though the census in Israel includes a breakdown
into religious groups, since thousands of those who are listed by the government as Jewish are not,
Rav Vozner does not consider this as counting Jews.

He adds that since no one is counted by name or family, but there is simply raw data collected, and
the data does not correlate at all to the number of Jews, that he does have any halachic objection
to participating in the census.

Counting Jews

Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir writes:5

Our parsha describes the detailed census of the Jews in the desert. Indeed, for this reason the
English name for sefer Bamidbar is "Numbers". Actually, counting Jews directly is forbidden, and
for this reason the Ramban suggests that the census of this parsha was carried out by counting half-
shekels donated by each man.
The Torah first hints at the problem with counting Jews directly already before Mattan Torah:
"When you take the sum of the children of Israel according to their counting, then each man will
give atonement for his soul when you count them; then there will be no plague as you count
them." (Shemot 30:12.)

The gemara learns that this is a general prohibition from the actions of King Shaul, who counted
the people in "betelaim". (I Shemuel 15:4.) The simple understanding of this phrase is "in Telaim",
a particular place (Radak), but Chazal understood the phrase literally, "by lambs": Shaul counted
one lamb for each man instead of counting the men directly.

Furthermore, Hoshea's prophecy "And the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which
will be neither measured nor counted" (Hoshea 2:1) is understood not merely as a blessing, but
also as a prohibition. (Yoma 22b.) And even counting indirectly is permitted only for the purpose
of a mitzvah. For no purpose at all, counting is forbidden, and for this reason David was punished
for arranging a census merely "so that I may know the number of the people" (Shemuel II 24:2) -
although he had not been punished for numbering his soldiers, which is necessary for making
war. (II Shemuel 18:1.)

5
https://outorah.org/p/7190/

30
This idea makes its way into everyday halakha in the prohibition of counting men for a minyan.
(Pri Chadash OC 55, KSA 15:3.) This prohibition emphasizes the uniqueness of each human being.
A person's unique qualities can never be reduced to some numerical quantity. So two human beings
is not in any meaningful sense "twice as much" as one. Reuven plus Shimon do not "sum together"
to equal two, rather they remain the same Reuven and Shimon as before.

There is a bit of a paradox involved, because ultimately we are interested in the number of people.
No matter how unique each individual is, it takes a certain number of men to man a tank, and ten
adult Jewish men constitute a minyan. Counting people directly fails to take account of each
person's uniqueness; refraining altogether from counting fails to acknowledge the importance of
sheer numbers. The indirect counting which we affirm for a mitzva perfectly balances the two
aspects.
The most common way of calculating a minyan is to count according to the words in a Scriptural
verse (usually Tehillim 28:9). This is a very beautiful way, because each word in a sentence is
unique and without it the sentence would lose its meaning.

Excitement of Terumat HaDeshen

Yisrael Bankier writes:6
Masechet Tamid discusses the daily activity in the Beit HaMikdash. We learn that the first job that
was determined by lottery was the terumat ha'deshen, which involved removing some ash from
major fire on the mizbeach.
Despite perhaps appearing mundane, we learnt in masechet Yoma that a lottery was needed due
the dangerous consequences when it was left to heated competition. Why were the kohanim so
passionate about this apparently mundane task?
The question is further strengthened considering how the Torah describes this mitzvah.
The Torah introduces the mitzvah with the term "tzav". Rashi explains that the language of tzav is
understood as being one of encouragement. R' Shimon adds that situations of chisaron
kis (expense) especially require encouragement. Two questions arise from Rashi. One is that there
appeared to be a disincentive in performing the mitzvah. This would be at odds with the enthusiasm
described in our Mishayot. The second is what was the expense or loss incurred in performing
the mitzvah.
The Chatam Sofer directs our attention to a later Mishnah that discussed the third lottery that
decided which kohen would offer the ketoret (incense). The Mishnah explains that
only kohanim that had never performed the task could take part in the lottery. The reason was that
the performance brought with it the promise of wealth and prosperity. The Chatam Sofer explains
that whoever won the first lottery, whoever perform terumat ha'deshen, would not be able to be
part of any other lottery that day. Consequently the "loss" incurred by one that would perform
the terumat ha'deshen was the inability to have a chance at offering the ketoret.

6
https://www.mishnahyomit.com/articles/Tamid/Excitement%20of%20Terumat%20HaDeshen

31
Let us however return to the first question -- how do we understand the excitement of
performing terumat ha'deshen?
The Chatam Sofer explains that it is natural for anything that is performed daily to become routine
and dull. It is for this reason that the Torah instructs one to tell the story of yetziyat miztrayim on
the night of Pesach only and not from Rosh Chodesh two weeks prior to Pesach. That advice
however is for children. For us, the expectation is different. We exclaim on a daily basis, "How
fortunate are we... that we arise early and stay up late and recite Shema twice a day." He explains
that the intention of the proclamation is that we a very fortunate that despite reciting Shema twice
daily, we do so with "ve'ahavta" with a sense of love as if it was our first time performing
the mitzvah.
The Chatam Sofer then turns his attention to the kohanim with a different reading of
the pesukim that describe terumat ha'deshen. When the Torah introduces terumat
ha'deshen explaining that "the fire of the Alter should remain aflame on it (bo)" the Chatam
Sofer understands that bo refers to kohen and not the mizbeach. This refers to the kohen who acts
with humility for his Creator and is willing to simply takes out the ashes as instructed. It is in
that kohen that a heavenly fire burns and cannot be extinguished. The Torah adds that
"the kohen shall kindle wood upon it every morning". The Chatam Sofer understands that this is
referring to the kohen again. Despite the daily routine, more fuel is added to the fire that burns
inside him.
We find that our original question is not a question at all. Honour or wealth are no more of a
motivation for the humble kohan bursting with love for Hashem, than the simple tzav -- call
from Hashem to fulfill his Will.

A lively and enlightening history of the census

The Sum of the People. By Andrew Whitby7

It is hard to get excited about a census. As the latest decennial wave rolls through many countries
in 2020 and 2021, people who fill out the forms, often urged by a knock on the door, will generally
find it tedious. In Britain, nearly 400,000 pranksters tried to liven up the process in 2001 by listing
their religion as “Jedi”. In America, the latest count might even cause fear. The Supreme Court
blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to ask about citizenship status, which would have
discouraged undocumented immigrants from responding, but many may still be reluctant to share
data with the government.

7
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/04/16/a-lively-and-enlightening-history-of-the-census

32
The officials who collect such information are seen as “the greyest of the grey-suited bureaucrats”,
says Andrew Whitby, an economist most recently at the World Bank. In “The Sum of the People”,
a new history of censuses, he drily notes that the United States Census Bureau is based in Suitland,
a town near Washington.

Mr Whitby’s book, however, is anything but drab. The first half races from Emperor Yu arranging
the first Chinese headcount around 2100bc to the advent of tabulation machines in 1890. These
chapters are really a potted history of the relationship between state and people, interspersed with
tales of great thinkers and intrepid data-gatherers (often travelling by boat). Originally, the census
was an imposition by an all-powerful executive, undertaken to muster armies and collect taxes.
Confucius was said to have deep respect for the procedure; Roman censors (from censere, to
assess) were as revered as consuls, and would grade the status of each householder. William the
Conqueror’s Domesday Book scoped out his new English kingdom.

Because censuses helped governors subjugate the governed, most people resented them. Scriptural
accounts of God punishing King David’s census with a plague made Jews and Christians especially
wary. Parliamentarians in Westminster were initially sceptical, rejecting a headcount in 1753 as
“totally subversive of the last remains of English liberty”. It was America that made demography
essential to democracy. The Founding Fathers knew that, to balance taxation and representation,
they would need a record of who lived where. They stipulated a decennial census in the constitution
(but gave black slaves three-fifths the weight of free whites).

Britain at last introduced one in 1801, after Thomas Malthus claimed that population growth would
outstrip productivity, causing famine. Other countries followed. But America remained the
crucible of modern census-taking. The edition of 1880 contained a billion data points—so Herman
Hollerith, an engineer, designed a machine that could process individual records using punch
cards, based on Charles Babbage’s uncompleted computers. Hollerith’s company later became part
of the International Business Machines Corporation (ibm).

A chapter on the Holocaust is grimly fascinating. Punch-card technology was used in concentration
camps, but Mr Whitby focuses on the bureaucrats who created identity-card systems, many
compiled by hand, which helped the Nazis track down Europe’s Jews. Population data may have
been a benign tool for democracies, but it remained lethal in dictatorships.

After this rapid journey through time, the final third of the book ambles through the post-war era
of censuses. And their doubtful future: given how burdensome nationwide surveys are—America’s
latest will cost $16bn—they may soon be replaced by digital registers drawn from various
government documents. Mr Whitby’s is an entertaining and informative story, more about society
than statistics. Leo Tolstoy, who helped conduct a census in Moscow, put it best: “The interest and
significance of the census for the community lie in this, that it furnishes it with a mirror into which,
willy-nilly, the whole community, and each one of us, gaze.”

33