Commentaire sur Les Nombres 3:39

אשר פקד משה ואהרן [ALL THAT WERE NUMBERED OF THE LEVITES] WHOM MOSES AND AARON NUMBERED — There are dots on the word Aaron to indicate that he was not among the number of the Levites (Bekhorot 4a; Sifrei Bamidbar 69:2 on Numbers 9:10).

כל פקודי הלוים, all the Levites who were numbered, etc. Nachmanides wonders at the small number of Levites seeing that we are dealing with a tribe who had proved loyal to G'd during the episode of the golden calf and had not sustained losses in their number at that time. Moreover, they were beloved of G'd already while in Egypt. How is it that their number was so small? Although they were counted from the age of one month, as opposed to the other tribes who were counted only from the age of twenty and over, the number of Levites was smaller than the numerically least populous tribe? Nachmanides provides two possible answers. 1) Seeing the phenomenal increase in the population of the Jews in Egypt was due to the cruel oppression of the Israelites by the Egyptians (Exodus 1,12), this blessing did not extend to the Levites who did not have to perform slave labour in Egypt. 2) Jacob's anger at his son Levi. I believe that the second reason cited by Nachmanides is quite difficult to accept. We do not find any source for assuming that the anger of a father caused lack of fertility in his sons. Besides, when you examine Chronicles I 23,3, you will find that the Levites between the ages of thirty and fifty who were numbered at that time (near the end of David's life) comprised 38,000. When we compare this number with the number given in Parshat Nasso, i.e. some 8,500, we certainly do not notice any lack of fertility on the part of that tribe. This means that during the approximately 480 years between our count and the count in Chronicles the Levites increased four-fold. When you compare the numbers given for the other tribes in Israel at that time when they were counted in Chronicles you will find that the other tribes had only doubled in number since being counted by Moses in the desert. In view of this, it is difficult to see how Jacob's anger at his son Levi impeded the development of his descendants.

There are dots over ואהרן. Meaning that only Moshe was involved in the counting of the Levites. (The dots imply that the word should not really be there, as if it were erased. See Bereishis, 33:4.) However, since both of them were involved in the count of the Israelites it is the manner of the Torah to write like this. Even though he did not take part in the count of the Levites he was still mentioned along with the count. There are those who explain Rashi’s words “he was not included in the counting of the Levites” to mean that he was not one of those who was counted. This is also implied in Tractate Bechoros 4a. However this raises a difficulty because the verse refers to those who did the counting — “whom Moshe and Aharon counted” — and not to those who were counted (Re’m). It appears to me that the correct explanation is as follows: The dots above Aharon’s name imply that he was not included in those who did the counting nor in those who were counted, because if not so why would the Torah mention Aharon and then place dots over his name. Therefore, so that you do not [mistakenly] say that he was not included in doing the counting, but he was one of those who were counted, there are dots over his name to teach that he was absent from everything, even those who were counted. This explanation is somewhat similar to the explanation that I gave for the words את צאן (Bereishis 37:12) where there are dots over את. Even though this explanation is somewhat forced, it helps to resolve a difficulty so that Rashi’s explanation in Chumash will not contradict his explanation in Tractate Bechoros where he explicitly says that Aharon was not included in the count. Similarly one can understand the statement of Bamidbar Rabbah: “The number of all the Levites whom Moshe and Aharon counted” — there are dots over his name because Aharon was not included in the count. The statement implies that he was not included in those who were counted.

V. 39. נקוד על אהרן שבחמש הפקודים .אשר פקד משה ואהרן, über אהרן hier stehen Punkte, um zu erinnern שלא היה באותו מנין, dass er nicht in dieser Zählung der Leviten mit inbegriffen war (Bechorot 4 a). Aharons Erwählung zum Priester ist nicht erst wie die der Leviten aus einer Substitution der Erstgeborenen hervorgegangen. Seine und seiner Söhne Bestellung zu כהנים war sofort mit dem Gebote der Errichtung des Heiligtums angeordnet, bevor noch durch das Egelereignis die Erstgeborenen ihre Stellung zum Heiligtum eingebüßt hatten (siehe Schmot 28, 1). Ohne dies Ereignis, darf man annehmen, hätten die Erstgeborenen die Stellung der Leviten eingenommen; allein mit Errichtung des משכן wäre gleichwohl der Opferdienst den Aharoniden übertragen worden, jedenfalls wohl für קרבנות צבור und קרבנות חובה, die ja selbst בשעת היתר במות ausschließlich dem משכן vorbehalten waren (siehe Sebachim 117 a). — שנים ועשרים אלף, die Gesamtsumme aller hier Gezählten war zweiundzwanzigtausenddreihundert. Diese dreihundert waren nach Bechorot 5 a Erstgeborene. Sie werden hier nicht mitgerechnet, da hier diese Zahlangaben auf die sofort zu besprechende Substituierung der Leviten an die Stelle der Erstgeborenen im Volke hinblickt, die Erstgeborenen der Leviten aber gleichsam nur sich selber zu substituieren und das fortan als Leviten zu leisten hatten, wozu sie bisher als Erstgeborene berufen gewesen waren, די לבכור שיפקיע קדושת עצמו (daselbst).

שנים ועשרים אלף, “twenty two thousand.” This number corresponds to the number of angels that formed G–d’s entourage when He descended to Mount Sinai at the time of the revelation of the Ten Commandments. We have an allusion to this in Psalms 68,18: רכב אלהים רבותים אלפי שנאן, “the Lord’s chariots, myriads upon myriads, thousands upon thousands.” (Compare Talmud, tractate Avodah Zara folio 3) The Talmud there suggests that the spelling of the word be amended to read שאינן instead of שנאן. The meaning of רבותים אלפי, is 22000. Seeing that the Lord, with His knowledge of the future was aware that the Israelites would all serve the golden calf with the exception of the 22000 Levites, He took only 22000 of His angels with Him when He revealed Himself at Mount Sinai.

And Aharon. There are dots over the word to teach that he was not included in the counting of the Levites (Rashi) — He was not included because the Levites redeemed the firstborn who had sinned with the Golden Calf, and since Aharon was the cause he was not counted for this purpose.

אשר פקד משה ואהרן, “whom Moses and Aaron had counted.” There are dots on the word ואהרן.

שנים ועשרים אלף [ALL THE MALES FROM A MONTH OLD AND UPWARDS WERE] TWENTY AND TWO THOUSAND — But in the enumeration of them given above you will find three hundred more — the sons of Gershon 7500 (v. 22). the sons of Kohath 8600 (v. 28), the sons of Merari C200 (v. 34), making 22,300! Why, then, did Scripture not include them in the sum total together with the others, when they, too, might have redeemed the firstborn of the Israelites (i.e., when each of the 300 might also have served the purpose of replacing a firstborn Israelite, as did the other 22,000; cf. v. 41), and thus the 273 firstborn Israelites who were in excess of the sum total of the Levites as given by Scripture, (the sum total of the firstborn having been 22,273, whilst the Levites, as summed up by Scripture, were only 22,000) would not have required redemption at all (cf. vv. 46—48)!? To this our Rabbis gave the reply in Treatise Bekhorot 5a: those three hundred Levites in question were themselves firstborn, and it was quite sufficient for them to do one thing — that they should free themselves from the necessity of ransom.

For them to release themselves. (Nachalas Yaakov) I have a difficulty with this: How can one say that the redemption of five shekolim would apply to the firstborn Levites? Surely the main reason for the redemption was that initially the firstborn were sanctified to perform the service of the offerings. However, since they sinned in the incident with the golden calf they were invalidated to perform the service, and their sanctity was transferred to the Levites who were not involved in the sin with the calf. This was the redemption of their sanctity; therefore the Torah says that those 273 remaining firstborn, whose sanctity did not have anyone to whom to be transferred, would have their sanctity removed by the giving of five shekolim. And [the removal of sanctity in this manner] is just like any sanctified property, which can be redeemed with money. But if this were the case, the firstborn Levites who were not involved in the sin with the calf would not have had their sanctity invalidated, so why then did they need to be redeemed? Consequently the question remains: Why did the two hundred and seventy-three firstborn need to give five shekolim, given that there were three hundred Levites. The explanation appears to be that we know that sanctified property cannot redeem sanctified property, rather mundane property redeems sanctified property and the sanctity becomes attached to the mundane property. However it is not possible for sanctified property to redeem sanctified property, since it is already sanctified. Similarly here, the twenty-two thousand Levites were ‘mundane’ until now; therefore the sanctity of the firstborn could be transferred to them. However the three hundred Levites who were firstborn and who were not involved in the sin with the calf, remained in their sanctified state for service, thus they could not take the place of the firstborn since they were already fit to serve in the Mishkon. Therefore, a firstborn could not release another firstborn and they needed to redeem their sanctity with five shekolim.

The first reason Nachmanides cites why the Levites increased far less during their stay in Egypt is correct and is supported by Bereshit Rabbah 79,1 according to which Jacob did not die until his descendants numbered 600.000. In order to reconcile the various verses in the Torah quoting numbers, it is necessary to understand the word כן in Exodus 1,12 as telling us that the Israelites who had first decreased in numbers after Jacob's death increased again after Pharaoh's attempt to reduce their numbers by the various measures described in the Torah. As to the statement in Exodus 1,7 about the Israelites being fruitful and multiplying exceedingly until the land appeared full of them, we must interpret that whereas during Jacob's lifetime the Israelites were not prominent in Egypt though numerous, after his death they became more and more visible so that the Egyptians were revolted by this phenomenon. If the original increase in the Jewish population included the tribe of Levi in full measure, why did they not increase the second time in similar measure? The answer is that Pharaoh's harsh decrees did not apply to them so that G'd did not need to compensate them for their suffering. Our sages in Bamidbar Rabbah 5,1 describe that the Levites suffered numerous deaths in connection with carrying the Holy Ark. This occurred however, only after the Levites had already been appointed, i.e. after the count described here.

I believe the simplest explanation for the relative small number of Levites is the fact that they copied the example of their leader Amram who had divorced his wife when the decree to drown the male babies was published. The Levites, precisely because they were not subjected to hard physical labour and all kinds of abuse, remained very sensitive so that they were not prepared to sire children only to have them drowned at birth. They therefore remained largely celibate after having produced a minimum number of children. Their fellow Israelites who were subjected daily to all kinds of cruel experiences had lost some of their erstwhile sensitivity so that the prospect of some of their children facing death at birth did not concern them quite as much as it did the Levites. As a result, they practiced the commandment of being fruitful without restraint giving G'd the opportunity to reward them with large families. Their wives did not mind giving birth in the fields, something which more civilised people would not do. The Torah did not spell all this out in detail; it mentioned what Amram had done only because he reversed himself when his daughter accused him of being worse than Pharaoh who wanted to kill only the males. The fact that Amram remarried his wife does not mean that the other Levites followed his example. As a result they had a far smaller base from which an increase in their numbers could result. We are all familiar with the comment in Sotah 12 about Miriam's having watched anxiously when Moses was in a basket in the bulrushes to see if her prophecy that Moses would become the redeemer of Israel showed signs of becoming true.

As to the question why a G'd-fearing tribe such the Levites largely ignored the most basic of G'd's commandments namely to be fruitful and to multiply, they may have applied to themselves the verse in Isaiah 65,23: "in order that they may not labour in vain and give birth to confusion." We find in Taanit 11 that in years of famine one may not sleep with one's wife in order not to fulfil the commandment of being fruitful when circumstances are such that suffering of existing human beings would be further increased. The Levites applied this kind of reasoning when considering the fate in store for their male children. Later on when they too fulfilled the commandment they inreased their number to compensate for the selfless attitude they had displayed while in Egypt.