| |
|
Having counted the Israelites, the Bible now turns to the Priests and the Levites. Aaron and his four sons were designated to serve as the priests in the Tabernacle. However, the two oldest sons, Nadav and Avihu brought an improper sacrifice during the dedication ceremonies of the Tabernacle and died, childless. Therefore, the only three priests were actually Aaron and his two remaining sons, Elazar and Itamar. The remainder of the tribe of Levi was designated to serve under Aaron and his sons, and work to maintain the Tabernacle. G-d had told Moses, during the plague of the firstborn in Egypt, that every rescued Israelite firstborn had become sanctified to Him, which meant that they were restricted to only performing holy tasks in the Tabernacle. Moses was now being informed that the Levites had been chosen to replace the firstborns in their service in the mishkan. This, however, left the firstborn in a difficult position since they were unable to participate in the mundane tasks of life while they still retained their holy status.
|
| Thoughts to Consider and Discuss |
1. Which verses have a textual difficulty that can be resolved with the following saying of Chazal, "Anyone who teaches the son of his friend Torah, is considered by Scriptures as if he gave birth to him"?
2. What qualities did the Levites display at the sin of the Golden Calf that qualified them to replace the firstborns in their service in the Tabernacle?
3. The original automatic claim of the firstborn for service seems to suggest qualities in such a child that would recommend him for this job. Have you seen this in your own life?
|
|
"The following parable may help explain. In one of the islands there lived a nation whose king would traditionally be chosen by the people for his qualifications of leadership. In this manner, though the nation always chose a descendant of the former king, the people always managed to secure a suitable ruler. This was due to the fact that there was no automatic succession, of course. It happened that one particular king was so outstanding, and his accomplishments on behalf of his nation so great, that the council of state, as a gesture of appreciation voted that henceforth the firstborn son of the king and the first born son of each subsequent king should automatically succeed his respective father. This law was not subject to periodic review, and became therefore unchallengeable. In due course, one of the later kings had two sons, of whom the elder was boorish, self-centered and quite unfit to rule, whereas his younger brother possessed all the qualities to make him a suitable successor. The hands of the lawmakers were tied due to the rule of succession by birthright that had been enacted generations ago as a gesture to an outstanding and beloved monarch. After much debate, it was decided that their only course lay in persuading the king's older son to renounce his claim to succession by voluntary abdication. For that purpose, they prepared a huge banquet of the kind the older son enjoyed, and they used the event to point out to the older son, that the burdens of office would greatly interfere with his lifestyle; in this manner they persuaded him to abdicate."
Rabbi Y. Arama, Akeidat Yitzchak (Rubin Mass Ltd., 1986), p.188
|
|
 | | Points to Ponder | |
At what point in Genesis was precedence by birth established?
To what narrative is the parable referring when the birthright is overturned? Give two more examples in which the firstborn does not take precedence but rather, is determined by merit.
How does 3:13 support this belief?
|
|
|
|