וַיִּתֵּ֣ן לָהֶ֣ם ׀ אֲ֠בִיהֶם מַתָּנ֨וֹת רַבּ֜וֹת לְכֶ֤סֶף וּלְזָהָב֙ וּלְמִגְדָּנ֔וֹת עִם־עָרֵ֥י מְצֻר֖וֹת בִּֽיהוּדָ֑ה וְאֶת־הַמַּמְלָכָ֛ה נָתַ֥ן לִֽיהוֹרָ֖ם כִּי־ה֥וּא הַבְּכֽוֹר׃ (פ)
Seu pai lhes dera grandes dádivas, em prata, em ouro e em objetos preciosos, juntamente com cidades fortes em Judá; mas o reino deu a Jeorão, porque ele era o primogênito.
Bamidbar Rabbah
“Take a census of…,” that is what is written: “He will not withdraw His eyes from the righteous…” (Job 36:7). The Holy One blessed be He does not withhold from them the realization of their ideal, as we found that Jacob coveted the birthright for the sake of Heaven, so he would be able to sacrifice. He purchased it from Esau with money and the Holy One blessed be He agreed with him, and He called him: “My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22). He granted greatness to the firstborn so they would sacrifice before Him. That is, “He will not withdraw His eyes [einav] from the righteous” (Job 36:7). [Another explanation:] “Einav” is nothing other than in his place [taḥtav], just as it says: “And, behold, the mark maintained its appearance [be’einav]” (Leviticus 13:5). What is taḥtav? These are his children, just as it says: “In the wake of [taḥat] your fathers, your sons will be” (Psalms 45:17).
“And kings upon the throne” (Job 36:7), as the Holy One blessed be He accorded honor to the firstborn, and it was fitting for them to take the kingdom, as it is stated: “But the kingdom he gave to Yehoram, because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3). Likewise, regarding David it says: “As for Me, I will make him My firstborn, supreme over kings of the earth” (Psalms 89:28). That is, “and kings upon the throne.”
“He has seated them forever” (Job 36:7), as they [the Israelite firstborns] would have been fit to take the priesthood and what the Levites perform, had they not sinned in the act of the calf. Initially, the firstborn would sacrifice, as it is stated: “He sent the young men of the children of Israel and they offered up burnt offerings [and they slaughtered feast-offerings of bulls to the Lord]” (Exodus 24:5).
Likewise, Jacob said to Reuben: “Reuben, you are my firstborn…[greater in honor [se’et] and greater in power [az]]” (Genesis 49:3). Se’et, this is priesthood, just as it says: “Aaron raised his hands [vayisa] toward the people, and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22). Az, this is kingdom, as it is stated: “He will give strength [oz] to His king” (I Samuel 2:10). Had Reuben not sinned in the act of Bilha, he would have been worthy to take priesthood and kingdom, because he was the firstborn..
From where is it derived that they were worthy for the service of the Levites? It is as you find that the common Levites entered in place of the firstborn of Israel, as it is stated: “You shall take the Levites for Me, I am the Lord, in place of all the firstborn among the children of Israel” (Numbers 3:41). That is, “he has seated them forever [lanetzach].” This is the status of the Levites that the firstborn were worthy to take, just as it says: “The Levites were counted from thirty years old and above…of these…” (I Chronicles 23:3–4). “To supervise [lenatzeach] the labor of the House of the Lord” (Ezra 3:8). Regarding the tribe of Levi, the verse said: “My eyes are on the faithful of the land; they will dwell [lashevet] with me” (Psalms 101:6). That is “He has seated them [vayoshivem] forever.”
“They were exalted” (Job 36:7). Who caused the firstborn to lose this honor? It is because they exalted themselves and worshipped before the calf. Therefore, “if there are those bound in shackles [bezikim]” (Job 36:8), they were prohibited from sacrificing an item that is done in fire.5"An item that is done in fire" refers to a sacrifice. Zikim is nothing other than fire, as it is stated: “Behold, all of you are igniters of fire, [lighters of sparks] [zikot]” (Isaiah 50:11). [“Or trapped in the pangs of poverty” (Job 36:8)], that each and every one of them is obligated to redeem himself with five silver shekels and give them to the Levites.
We find regarding the firstborn of Israel that they descended from their prominence because of the act of the calf. But the firstborn of the Levites, who did not err regarding the calf, the priesthood was given to Aaron, who was the firstborn, and the rest of the firstborn Levites required neither redemption nor atonement, and merited Levite status with their brethren.
Were a person to whisper to you: ‘Was Gershon not firstborn? Why did the verse give precedence to Kehat in taking a census, and only then counted Gershon?’ You, too, say to him: ‘Because [the family of] Kehat were the bearers of the Ark, which is of the most sacred order, and Aaron the priest, who was of the most sacred order, emerged from him, while Gershon was sacred. That is why the verse gave Kehat precedence.
From where do you derive that Gershon did not lose his prominence because he was firstborn? It is as you find just as it is stated regarding Kehat: “Take a census of the sons of Kehat” (Numbers 4:2), so, it is stated regarding Gershon: “Take a census of the sons of Gershon [as well]” (Numbers 4:22). What is it that the verse stated: “As well”? It is so you will not say that it is for this that he counted the sons of Gershon second, because they are inferior to the sons of Kehat. No, rather, “as well” is written; that the sons of Gershon, too, were the equivalent of the sons of Kehat, but the verse gave them precedence here in deference to the Torah. But in other places, it gave precedence to Gershon over Kehat.
“And kings upon the throne” (Job 36:7), as the Holy One blessed be He accorded honor to the firstborn, and it was fitting for them to take the kingdom, as it is stated: “But the kingdom he gave to Yehoram, because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3). Likewise, regarding David it says: “As for Me, I will make him My firstborn, supreme over kings of the earth” (Psalms 89:28). That is, “and kings upon the throne.”
“He has seated them forever” (Job 36:7), as they [the Israelite firstborns] would have been fit to take the priesthood and what the Levites perform, had they not sinned in the act of the calf. Initially, the firstborn would sacrifice, as it is stated: “He sent the young men of the children of Israel and they offered up burnt offerings [and they slaughtered feast-offerings of bulls to the Lord]” (Exodus 24:5).
Likewise, Jacob said to Reuben: “Reuben, you are my firstborn…[greater in honor [se’et] and greater in power [az]]” (Genesis 49:3). Se’et, this is priesthood, just as it says: “Aaron raised his hands [vayisa] toward the people, and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22). Az, this is kingdom, as it is stated: “He will give strength [oz] to His king” (I Samuel 2:10). Had Reuben not sinned in the act of Bilha, he would have been worthy to take priesthood and kingdom, because he was the firstborn..
From where is it derived that they were worthy for the service of the Levites? It is as you find that the common Levites entered in place of the firstborn of Israel, as it is stated: “You shall take the Levites for Me, I am the Lord, in place of all the firstborn among the children of Israel” (Numbers 3:41). That is, “he has seated them forever [lanetzach].” This is the status of the Levites that the firstborn were worthy to take, just as it says: “The Levites were counted from thirty years old and above…of these…” (I Chronicles 23:3–4). “To supervise [lenatzeach] the labor of the House of the Lord” (Ezra 3:8). Regarding the tribe of Levi, the verse said: “My eyes are on the faithful of the land; they will dwell [lashevet] with me” (Psalms 101:6). That is “He has seated them [vayoshivem] forever.”
“They were exalted” (Job 36:7). Who caused the firstborn to lose this honor? It is because they exalted themselves and worshipped before the calf. Therefore, “if there are those bound in shackles [bezikim]” (Job 36:8), they were prohibited from sacrificing an item that is done in fire.5"An item that is done in fire" refers to a sacrifice. Zikim is nothing other than fire, as it is stated: “Behold, all of you are igniters of fire, [lighters of sparks] [zikot]” (Isaiah 50:11). [“Or trapped in the pangs of poverty” (Job 36:8)], that each and every one of them is obligated to redeem himself with five silver shekels and give them to the Levites.
We find regarding the firstborn of Israel that they descended from their prominence because of the act of the calf. But the firstborn of the Levites, who did not err regarding the calf, the priesthood was given to Aaron, who was the firstborn, and the rest of the firstborn Levites required neither redemption nor atonement, and merited Levite status with their brethren.
Were a person to whisper to you: ‘Was Gershon not firstborn? Why did the verse give precedence to Kehat in taking a census, and only then counted Gershon?’ You, too, say to him: ‘Because [the family of] Kehat were the bearers of the Ark, which is of the most sacred order, and Aaron the priest, who was of the most sacred order, emerged from him, while Gershon was sacred. That is why the verse gave Kehat precedence.
From where do you derive that Gershon did not lose his prominence because he was firstborn? It is as you find just as it is stated regarding Kehat: “Take a census of the sons of Kehat” (Numbers 4:2), so, it is stated regarding Gershon: “Take a census of the sons of Gershon [as well]” (Numbers 4:22). What is it that the verse stated: “As well”? It is so you will not say that it is for this that he counted the sons of Gershon second, because they are inferior to the sons of Kehat. No, rather, “as well” is written; that the sons of Gershon, too, were the equivalent of the sons of Kehat, but the verse gave them precedence here in deference to the Torah. But in other places, it gave precedence to Gershon over Kehat.
Ein Yaakov (Glick Edition)
"Simon, my son, should be the Chacham." What did he mean by this? He means thus: although Simon, my son, is wise, nevertheless Gamaliel, my son, should be conferred with the dignity of Patriarch. Levi asked: "Why was it necessary to give such an instruction [since he was the oldest one?"] Said R. Simon b. Rabbi: "It was necessary for thee and for thy lame foot." Why did not R. Simon understand the question. Is there not a passage (II Chr. 21, 3) But the kingdom gave he to Jehoram; because he was the first born? There it was different, because he was able to fill out the place of his father in every respect; but Gamaliel was not able to fill out the place of his father. If so, then why did Rabbi give instructions to make him the Patriarch? Rabbi's reason was because, granted that he was not able to fill his father's place in wisdom, nevertheless in fearing God he did fill his father's place. "Chanina b. Chama should be the head of the academy." R. Chanina, however, did not accept the position, because R. Appas was two and a half years older than he. Therefore R. Appas became the head. R. Chanina, nevertheless, remained outside. Levi then joined R. Chanina as an associate to him, and when R. Appas died, which caused the elevation of R. Chanina to the chief of the academy, Levi, not having anyone to join him, left the land of Israel and emigrated to Babylonia, and this is what the people informed Rab. "A great man happened to come to Nehardea, lame on one leg, and expounded that a woman is permitted [on the Sabbath] to take a stroll, while bearing a wreath on her head." Rab then said: "This proves that R. Appas died and R. Chanina became the chief of the academy, hence Levi did not have anyone to associate with him and therefore came here." Why not say that R. Chanina died, so R. Appas remained as before, but Levi merely lost his associate and was compelled to come to Babylon? If you wish I will explain that Levi would have subordinated himself to the control of R. Appas [and his refusal was chiefly because he desired to be an associate to R. Chanina]; and if you wish I will say since Rabbi ordered that R. Chanina should become the chief of the academy, it became impossible that he should die and not become a chief, for it is said (Job. 22, 28) And if thou decree a thing, it will be fulfilled unto thee. But why did not Rabbi appoint as the chief of the academy R. Chiya, who was the oldest? Because R. Chiya had been dead already. But do we not find that R. Chiya said: "I saw the grave of Rabbi upon which I shed tears"? This was the reversed condition [that Rabbi saw R. Chiya's grave and shed tears on it.] But has not R. Chiya said that the day on which Rabbi died, holiness was abolished? This was taught in the reversed way. But again, is there not a Baraitha that when Rabbi became ill, R. Chiya entered to visit him and found him weeping, whereupon R. Chiya said to him: "Why art thou crying? Are we not taught in a Baraitha that when one dies while laughing it is a good omen, but when one dies while crying it is a bad omen, dying with his face upward, it is a good omen; but with his face downward, it is a bad omen; with his face towards the wall, it is a bad omen; but with his face towards the people, it is a good omen. If one's face turns green after death, it is a bad omen; but if one's face looks reddish or yellow, it is a good omen. If one dies on the Sabbath eve, it is a good omen; but if one dies on the termination of the Sabbath, it is a bad omen. If one dies on the eve of the Day of Atonement, it is a bad omen; but if one dies on the termination of the Day of Atonement, it is a good omen. If one dies of an intestinal sickness, it is a good omen, because the majority of the righteous die of an entrail sickness." Whereupon Rabbi answered him: "I am weeping because of the Torah and the meritorious deeds which I will not be able to perform." [Hence we see that R. Chiya was alive when Rabbi died.] If you wish, you may reverse the above Baraitha, and if you wish you may say that it is not necessary to reverse the Baraitha; but since R. Chiya devoted his time to important meritorious deeds, Rabbi thought it is better not to disturb him.