כִּי֩ נְתֻנִ֨ים נְתֻנִ֥ים הֵ֙מָּה֙ לִ֔י מִתּ֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל תַּחַת֩ פִּטְרַ֨ת כָּל־רֶ֜חֶם בְּכ֥וֹר כֹּל֙ מִבְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל לָקַ֥חְתִּי אֹתָ֖ם לִֽי׃
Porque enteramente me son á mí dados los Levitas de entre los hijos de Israel, en lugar de todo aquel que abre matriz; helos tomado para mí en lugar de los primogénitos de todos los hijos de Israel.
Derashot HaRan
And herein, too, is resolved a formidable question: The Blessed One commanded that the Levites be set aside for the work of the sanctuary in place of the first-born and declared it to be incumbent on all of Israel to subsidize them in view of His having appropriated for Himself all of the first-born in Israel by virtue of His having saved them from the plague of the first-born in Egypt. Since He thus appropriated them for Himself, and they, through their own sins, disqualified themselves for His service, it was only fitting that they hire others in their place. This is the intent of (Numbers 8:16-17): "For they [the Levites] are entirely given to Me from the midst of the Children of Israel in place of those who open every womb, the first-born of all among the Children of Israel; I have taken them for Myself. For Mine are all the first-born of the children of Israel, both man and beast. On the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified them unto Me." That is, on the day that I smote the first-born of Egypt and did not kill them, I acquired them for Myself. Now this is, indeed, cause for wonder. Why should He have acquired them through having smitten the first-born of Egypt, who were deserving of punishment, and not having smitten them, who had sinned in nothing! Would a king be justified in telling someone: "I have acquired you as a servant by having killed that man for having killed another, and not having killed you"? This would certainly be unthinkable. And yet, that is what seems to be transpiring here!