Naso: unique

Naso: unique

Lets look at the parsha from the end.   The last verse is

וּבְבֹ֨א מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶל־אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֮ לְדַבֵּ֣ר אִתּוֹ֒ וַיִּשְׁמַ֨ע אֶת־הַקּ֜וֹל מִדַּבֵּ֣ר אֵלָ֗יו מֵעַ֤ל הַכַּפֹּ֙רֶת֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ עַל־אֲרֹ֣ן הָעֵדֻ֔ת מִבֵּ֖ין שְׁנֵ֣י הַכְּרֻבִ֑ים וַיְדַבֵּ֖ר אֵלָֽיו׃ {פ}
When Moses went into the Tent of Meeting to speak with Him, he would hear the Voice addressing him from above the cover that was on top of the Ark of the Pact between the two cherubim; thus He spoke to him.

Gd talks to Moshe from between the Cherubim.     Gd never spoke to anyone else from this position.  Moshe is quite unique, it is a Maimonidean article of faith.  Gd ( the most unique, singular being of them all [by definition]) speaks from the between the Cherubim.  Were the cherubim identical? Were they complementary, male and female? Being artifices, they could not be identical, but they could be very similar. 

Prior to this last sentence, there is a repeated refrain of the gifts brought to the newly assembled and  anointed  Tabernacle by the 12  ( Non Levite) tribal leaders. Each silver bowl (130 shekel) and basin (70 shekel) and golden spoon ( 10 shekel) ;every bull, ram, lamb  and goat is individually enumerated under the prince who brought it.  This is followed by an accounting of their net value in shekels of silver and gold and numbers of animals for particular sacrifices.  All twelve times the identical sounding individual gifts.  But they were not identical.  Certainly, the animals were not identical. The bowls and spoons may also have been decorated and constructed in unique manners.  This is not specified in the text.  We superimpose our experience of the (nearly) identical mass produced objects that seem to differ only in their serial numbers.  But in the ancient  hand made world, the differences were present.  Were they exaggerated by decoration? Maybe.

The Nazir  precedes the parade of gifts to the Tabernacle. The Nazir , a word related to zar, alien, was a person who followed a formula to separate herself from the community. He could not drink wine, cut his hair, or come in contact with the dead.  Violations of these rules were treated differently.  Drinking wine was penalized by lashes, but the Nazir state was not compromised. Taking a haircut necessitated a 30 day period of following all the rules, regardless of the duration of the original pledge. Contact with the dead forced an animal sacrifice of expiation and the total restart.  If it occured on the last day of a multiyear pledge, all the stated years had to be repeated. Dealing with death,  the fate of all people, including the most alienated,  cancelled everything that came before it. In the dead state, everyone is the same. 

The assertion of individuality that is embedded in the Sotah, the wayward spouse, is dangerous territory. The tension between a commitment, with a future that cannot be predicted with accuracy, and the desire for self assertion through adventure was a subject for great 19th century literature ( Madam Bovary,  Anna Karenina).  Perhaps effective birth control has modified the perception of the seriousness of these violations of the prescribed norm, but violations remain a very serious offense and often end the relationship and have additional consequences. 

We live in a world of interchangeable parts. Be careful  about its extrapolation to life. There is a place for the unique  There is utility in the sum.