It's rarely an accident. Often, these repetitions are clues, hints that there's something deeper going on, something we need to pay close attention to.
Take, for example, the inauguration of the altar in the Book of Numbers, Bamidbar. We read (Numbers 7:84), "This is the (accounting of the) inauguration of the altar on the day that it was anointed." Then, just a few verses later (Numbers 7:88), we find, "This is the (accounting of the) inauguration of the altar after it was anointed." Seems repetitive. So, what's the deal? The Sifrei Bamidbar, a collection of legal interpretations on the Book of Numbers, dives into this apparent redundancy. It asks: why both "on the day that it was anointed" and "after it was anointed"?
The Sifrei suggests that without the phrase "on the day that it was anointed," we might assume a significant amount of time passed between the anointing and the inauguration. But then, if we only had "on the day that it was anointed," we might mistakenly think the offerings were brought before the anointing. The Torah, with its careful wording, ensures we understand: the offering was brought on the very same day, after the anointing. It’s about precision.
This idea of simultaneous action, of immediate consequence, is echoed elsewhere. The Sifrei draws a parallel to Leviticus (Vayikra) 7:35-36, which speaks of the anointment of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood. It states, "This is the (portion of the) anointment of Aaron and of the anointment of his sons… which the L-rd commanded to give to them on the day that he anointed them." The rabbis ask, did they only receive the gifts later? No! "On the day that they were anointed they merited receiving the (priestly) gifts."
But, the text continues, if they received the gifts on the day of their anointment, what's the meaning of "which the L-rd commanded to give to them on the day that he anointed them?" Here, the Sifrei Bamidbar offers a fascinating insight: "We are hereby taught that they (Israel) were commanded (to give them) on Mount Sinai, but they (the Cohanim, the priests) did not acquire them until they had been anointed with the oil of anointment." The command to give these gifts was given way back at Sinai, at the very foundation of the Israelite nation. But the priests only truly received them, only truly possessed them, upon their anointment. There's a crucial distinction between a commandment and its fulfillment, between a promise and its realization.
And then, there's the phrase "by the chiefs of Israel" (Numbers 7:84). The Sifrei understands this to mean: just as the chiefs were united in counsel to bring these offerings, so too were they united in merit. Unity in action, unity in reward. A powerful message about the importance of communal effort and shared destiny.
Finally, the text mentions "silver dishes, twelve". The Sifrei notes, these were the very same ones donated; they hadn't become unfit for service. This detail underscores the value placed on the original offering, its enduring worthiness and the lasting impact of a sincere contribution.
So, what can we take away from this deep dive into a seemingly simple passage? Perhaps it’s this: that the Torah's apparent repetitions are never accidental. They are invitations to look closer, to delve deeper, and to uncover the layers of meaning that lie beneath the surface. They remind us that timing matters, that intention matters, and that unity matters. And that even the smallest details, like the condition of a silver dish, can hold profound significance.