“R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: Because Scripture says, ‘that I may be sanctified among of the children of Israel’ (Lev. 22:32), every act of sanctification requires not less than ten” (Babylonian Talmud Megilla 23b, and cf. Berakhot 21b, Sanhedrin 74b). In other words, the sages relied upon this verse in establishing the requirement of a minyan of ten. But why ten? The need for ten was derived from a verse in parashat Shelah Lekha: “How much longer shall that wicked congregation keep muttering against Me” (Num. 14:27). The Talmud explains: “Just as ten are indicated there, so there are ten here” (loc.cit.).

In order to arrive at that conclusion, the Talmud relies not only upon the congregation of spies, but also upon the congregation of Korah:

That I may be sanctified among the children of Israel – every act of sanctification requires not less than ten. How does the verse denote this?  As R. Hiyya taught: We explain the word ‘among’ here by reference to its use in another place. It is written here, ‘That I may be sanctified among the children of Israel’, and it is written elsewhere, ‘Separate yourselves from among this congregation’ (Num. 16:21); and we further explain the word ‘congregation’ here by reference to what is written in another place, ‘How much longer shall that wicked congregation keep muttering against Me’. Just as ten are indicated there, so there are ten here (loc.cit.).

One wonders why it was necessary for the sages to resort to two, contingent, convoluted analogies in order to establish a Scriptural basis for the number ten. Was no more straightforward option available? Indeed, the Jerusaelm Talmud proposes an alternative:

R. Simon said: It says “among” here, and it says “among” here, “Thus the children of Israel were among those who came to procure rations” (Gen. 42:5). Just as ten are indicated there, so there are ten here. R. Yosei b. R. Bun said to him, If you are relying upon “among”then there are many instances, but it says here “the children of Israel” and it says there “the children of Israel”. Just as ten are indicated there, so there are ten here (Berakhot ch. 7 [p. 10 col. 4]), Megilla 4[75, 2], Sanhedrin 1 [19, 3], and cf. Genesis Rabba (Vilna) 91).

Even this approach is somewhat contrived, as should be clear from R. Bun’s (R. Abun) objection that there are many instances of the word “among” in the Bible, and therefore it would be better to rely upon the term “children of Israel”. This is far from a convincing argument, if only because the term “children of Israel” is far more common in the Bible than the word “among”. And while, in context, the reference is to ten: “So ten of Joseph's brothers went down to get grain rations in Egypt” (Gen. 42:3), generally, the term “children of Israel” refers to a much larger congregation. However, R. Bahya b. Asher (1255-1340) wrote:

And the sages used this verse to show that every act of sanctification requires ten, as it says in Berakhot (21b): “every act of sanctification requires not less than ten” for it says “that I may be sanctified among the children of Israel”, and it says there (Num 16:21) “Separate yourselves from among this congregation”. Just as ten are indicated there, so there are ten here. And R. Jacob explained that this is not an accurate text, as evidence should not be brought from the ten spies for acts of sanctification, and the correct text is therefore: “It is deduced from the word “among”. Here it says ‘I may be sanctified among the children of Israel’, and there (Gen. 42:5) it says “among those who came to procure rations”. Just as ten are indicated there, so there are ten here. And thus the evidence for acts of sanctification is adduced from Joseph’s ten brothers, who were righteous (R. Bahya’s commentary to Lev. 22:32).

According to the approach cited by R. Bahya, the problem with the analogy is not that it is contrived, but rather that it is improper to base the requirement of ten for acts of sanctification upon negative sources like the ten spies or the followers of Korah, and positive sources should be employed.

1. Why would the sages choose to base the required number for a minyan upon negative sources? What value lessons might they have sought to convey by relying upon those sources? Is recourse to the example of Joseph’s brothers more successful? Is it truly accurate to portray Joseph’s ten brothers as “righteous” at that stage of the story?

2. The importance of preserving both the bad and the good is expressed in a midrash concerning the change of Joshua’s name, which is reported in parashat Shelah Lekha (13:16). The midrash says that King David asked God to expunge the matter of Bath Sheba from the Bible so that he would not be remembered as a sinner. According to the midrash, God replied: “It is impossible. The letter “yod” that I removed from the name Sarai [when it became Sarah] shouted for years until Joshua arrived and I added it to his name, as it says: ‘But Moses changed the name of Hosea son of Nun to Joshua’. A whole chapter, how much more so!” (Yalkut Shimoni on Psalms 677). Why did the sages attach such importance to recording the bad along with the good?