The Torah concludes each of the twelve paragraphs which describe the dedication offerings of the Nesiim with the above pesukim. We should note the Torah‘s refrain in its description of these offerings. Indeed, Chazal expound upon the preciousness of these offerings before Hashem. “The offering of the Nesiim is as precious to Hashem as the “song” Bnei Yisrael sang by the Red Sea, for there it says: This is my G-d; and here it says, “this is the sacrifice of Nachson.”
Horav Shlomo Breuer Z”l suggests that this reference by Chazal to the “Shira” is intended to clarify the apparent redundancy of these pesukim. Indeed, if one takes into account that not one letter of the Torah is superfluous and that numerous laws are derived from one single letter, it is almost incomprehensible that the Torah reserves a complete paragraph for each of the Nesiim’s offering! He states that this ostensibly pointless repetition of the contribution of each tribe is used by the Torah to express a fundamental truth. Twelve different men may offer an equal contribution, but each individual gift carries its own value before Hashem. The actual gift does not determine its significance. Rather, it is the individual who contributes, the spirit in which he gives, and the joy which emanates from this act. Twelve Nesiim may offer the same contribution, but each performs a unique act.
Similarly, together Moshe and Bnei Yisrael sang Shira after the splitting of the Red Sea, but they did not sing this song in the plural form of ” ubheukt vz”. Rather, everyone sang his own personal “hke vz”. Although six hundred thousand men together expressed themselves with the exact same words, each individual’s words sustain a unique meaning. Thus, we note the parallel between”hke vz” and “icre vzw” in that each statement expresses the individuality of the speaker.
We might suggest an addendum to this exposition. Indeed, individuality in Torah endeavor is an inherent component of mitzvah performance. We must emphasize the fact, however, that the Nesiim’s contributions were identical. Their intentions, actions, and goals were all in compliance with Hashem’s imperatives. Their individuality lay only in the mode of personal expression of these same mitzvos.
All too often we seek to justify a delineation from the correct traditional manner of serving the Divine by applying the famous dictum of ” these and those are both the words of Hashem.” One cannot legitimize Torah alienated statements using this often misinterpreted Rabbinic dictum. Chazal’s statement refers to various differences of opinion among Torah scholars within the framework of Torah Law. Chazal definitely do not give credence to anyone who desires to glorify words or actions which are antithetical to Torah Law. Individuality within the parameters of Halacha is commendable and praiseworthy. Trespassing beyond these boundaries, however, intimates an arrogant form of impudence which may be interpreted as blasphemy.
