 |
|
 |
Parashat Bamidbar - Numbers 1:1-4:20
A conversation between Alan Goldman and Peretz Rodman God spoke to Moses, saying: I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of all the firstborn, the first issue of the womb among the people of Israel; therefore the Levites shall be mine... (Numbers 3:11-12) PERETZ: Parashat Bamidbar begins with a lot of statistical housekeeping and, like in many similar passages, you can often find significance in the order in which things are done or perhaps in the patterns of the numbers. But we've decided to ignore that for now and focus on the end of Chapter 3 of Bamidbar to examine the replacement of the bechorot [first-born males] as a societal role by the Levites, and what that signifies. It's a bit surprising - all of this work to count the entire nation and then suddenly we count the Levites separately - it's actually a lead-in to the switcheroo that's pulled on the bechorot. I wonder if I were a bechor [first-born-male] if I would've noticed anything strange. Why are they picking out this particular tribe to do a census of males from the age of one month and up? I'm also trying to imagine being a Levi and discovering that I was different from members of all the other tribes and that I had a special function. Is the emphasis on the responsibility involved or rather on the notoriety and possibly even privilege? Then, of course, you have to ask what God is doing playing with the rules of primogeniture and the special role of the bechorot. In Deuteronomy 21, there's a passage about the favored wife and the disfavored wife, and that if the bechor is the son of the disfavored wife you're not allowed to take that status away from him. I've always understood that law as an indication of equality in polygamous marriage, but perhaps it's more about how the bechor has such an entrenched position - it's almost part of nature - that God insists that even under conditions where you don't intuitively prefer the bechor, you can't challenge his unique legal status. ALAN: We've already seen the setup of the bechor system - and perhaps even some of its flaws - in the stories of Genesis. According to the midrash, the bechorot were responsible for each generation, starting with Adam and continuing down the line father to son. All of a sudden there's a shift - Abraham wasn't a bechor but he was worthy, so he gets the status. Isaac wasn't a bechor but he, too, was worthy. Then comes Jacob and Esau - Esau should've been the bechor but instead the role was given to Jacob. This continues through the birth of the 12 tribes up until Moses who, as the bechor, gets the lead role, while Aaron gets the secondary task. The bechorot are supposed to hold this special leadership role - so why do we see throughout Genesis that they keep getting dethroned, until this point here in Bamidbar, where they're permanently dethroned? Why create the role if it's just going to be ignored? PERETZ: From a critical, historical perspective I would say that the privileged status of the bechor is something that's taken for granted in society. The Torah uses it in Genesis as an opportunity to build dramatic tension. We know that the promise to Abraham is supposed to work out, and even beforehand we know that creation is supposed to work out for the benefit of humanity. The question is always going to be: what happens when again and again, we see that the bechor is not necessarily the one who ought to be carrying the banner of ethical behavior, or simply isn't the appropriate one to be chosen? The theme almost gets boring by the end of Genesis because you know that every single time it's going to work out that way. But the real question is how do we deal with this situation? How are we going to shunt the bechor aside? We have Reuven, who is a real bumbler of a bechor in his attempts to save Joseph and therefore save his brothers from later punishment, and in his attempt to get his father to agree to send Binyamin down to free Shimon. Well, Yehuda comes through every time and the story works out in the end even though the bechor who is supposed to be leading the charge is ineffective. In looking at the Torah as literature, it uses this dilemma to build dramatic tension. Why now is there a substitution of the Levites for the bechorot, as the people who serve in the sanctuary? ALAN: One reason the bechorot lost their status is because they were involved in worshipping the golden calf. The Levites stayed out and this could be seen as their prize. Maybe when God set up the system from the start and determined that each family would get one representative, the more egalitarian approach, God saw that it wasn't working. So instead God decided to focus on one tribe, and set them apart, that they should be dedicated to serve God on behalf of the Jewish people. PERETZ: We see that the substitution of Levite for bechor has an immediate effect because the first time we count the Levites in Chapter 3, we count them starting with the family of the bechor of Levy, Gershon. And then when we read the next census right after this passage, who's counted first? All of sudden, the children of Kahat, who are not the bechor family within the tribe, are mentioned first. And they get the more distinguished position, a bechor kind of position, carrying the most sacred objects on their shoulders. I think I prefer to see the difference between the bechor system and the tribal system - the selection of the Levites - as a statement about where one learns responsibility. Responsibility isn't something that you inherit as a matter of birth order. Rather, it's a matter of the environment created by the family in which you're brought up. And so the Levites are entrusted with this important task, learning it from father to son. That system is preferable to taking the bechor from each family by default. ALAN: But if we are to take this as a model for our own lives, why not construct a more modern, democratic system where the individual who wants the job simply applies for it, and those selected are the most qualified? PERETZ: Despite our social egalitarianism, there is something about the culture that you imbibe from growing up in a particular family that has real significance and an effect on who you are. I think that's irreplaceable by any other system of education. On another level, if you're thinking about your child's spouse, or even who you want your kids to play with, you want somebody from a good family. We simply don't see people as individuals per se because we know the tremendous effects, negative and positive, that family traditions carry. I suspect that's what this is about. ALAN: Originally, it seemed like a nice idea for everyone to have a representative from their own family, the bechor, but that didn't work - it's clear throughout Genesis. Although we can't just see who else is worthy in each family, as they did, and nominate them to fulfill that role. That to me seems bizarre. We then replaced the bechor with the Levites, but we'll soon read in Parashat Korach that the Levites don't fare so well in the end, either. From later history, we learn that the corruption amongst the priestly families - descendants of the Levites - was a major factor in the destruction of the Temple. My conclusion is that we need to choose those who will be our leaders, at least in the spiritual realm. |