Commento su Numeri 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.