INSIGHT 5769 - #38 FAMILIAL SERVICE AND COMMUNAL SERVICE
It is generally understood that the Kohanim
and Leviim were given no inheritance in the
Bamidbar 3:12 states that the Leviim were
appointed to the service of God in lieu of the first born
males who were originally given that duty. Rabbi Yosef
Bechor Shor, after presenting the basic and classic
reason for this exchange,3 adds that there was
also an inherent difficulty in maintaining the first born
in the Divine service -- they received a double portion
of inheritance. Those who are in the service of God
should only focus on this service and thus should not be
bothered by property matters. As such, this duty of
Divine service was passed to the Leviim who did
not even have a nachala, even one portion. Why,
though, according to this perception, was the right of
Divine service originally given to the first born if they
were to receive double portions of inheritance including
land? This original designation would actually seem to
support an opposite theory, that property inheritance
should not be a bar to the proper service of God.
Chizkuni, Bamidbar 3:12, interestingly, maintains
that it must be that the bechor was not originally
intended to receive any portion of inheritance. If he was
to be devoted to the service of God, he must have,
theoretically and initially, been excluded from any nachala
just like, eventually, the Leviim were. It was
only after the exchange with the Leviim that the
first born received the right to any portion and,
specifically, a double portion. Many sources, however,
point to the fact that even before Matan Torah at
Sinai, the bechor was entrusted with the Divine
service within the family and also received a double
portion of inheritance.4 From the rules that
surround the status of the Leviim, though, it
would seem that the possession of these two rights should
be, almost, mutually exclusive.
Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, Devarim 21:17
attempts to find some resolution of this difficulty
regarding the first born through the distinction that
exists between the first born of the mother and the first
born of the father.5 It is specifically the
first born of the mother that must be redeemed from the
Divine service and who thus is to be associated with the
spiritual dimension. It is also specifically the first
born of the father that is entitled to a double portion
and who thus is to be associated with property and the
material dimension. He compares this distinction between
what he terms the ‘spiritual bechora’
and the ‘material bechora’ to the
distinction, on the national level, between the kehuna,
priesthood, and the melucha, kingship. The problem
is, though, that in the majority of situations, the first
born of the father is also the first born of the mother.
The ‘spiritual bechora’ and the
‘material bechora’ merge. On the
national level the kehuna and melucha are
never to merge.6 For the Kohanim and
the Leviim to function properly, though, they were
to be removed from the land. Rabbi Hirsch’s
presentation, while somewhat actually identifying the
issue, would seem ultimately only to further the question
rather than solve it.
Within the words of Rabbi Hirsch, though, we may find a
thought that may provide for us a basis for understanding
what we must perceive as a fundamental distinction
between the service of the Leviim and the service
of the bechor. To accomplish his goals, the Levi
had to have a separation from the land. To accomplish his
goals, however, the bechor had to have what is
effectively a greater connection to the land as evidenced
by his double portion. The significance of the land,
though, did not just arise from its materialistic nature.
The land, the nachala, was a symbol of the family.
As Rabbi Hirsch points out, the significance of the role
of the bechor was in this familial context. The
switch of the rite of the avodah, the service of
God, from the first born to the Leviim, thus, also
represented a fundamental change in the very nature of
the avodah. With the bechor undertaking the
duty of the service of God, the avodah is set
within the context of the family. With the switch to the Leviim,
the realm of the avodah is no longer the family.
It is now set within the context of the society, the
community. It is within an understanding of this realm
that those doing the avodah, the Kohanim
and the Leviim, are not given a nachala in
the land. There is a disagreement among the commentators as to whether the command to build the Mishkan was in response to the Sin of the Golden Calf or whether it reflected its own inherent value.7 According to the view that it was a response to this sin, there would seem to be further support for this view that the transfer from the first born to the Leviim was part of a greater shift in the very essence of the avodah, from a familial activity to a societal activity. As a familial activity, it makes sense that those entrusted with this task would have a greater portion in the familial nachala for they were the prime representatives of the family. This, in fact, is the very essence of the role of the bechor as it surfaces in realms beyond the avodah and, so, even today, the right of the double portion continues. It also makes total sense that, with the avodah as a societal activity, those who perform this service should be excluded from the land and turn to the general population for their sustenance. In this way, the entire nation becomes connected to those who perform the avodah through the creation of a symbiotic relationship that binds the nation in the service of God. .
. Rabbi Benjamin Hecht e-mail Footnotes 1 While the Leviim, of
course, were still given numerous cities spread
throughout the land, these cities were not considered a nachala,
a territorial inheritance, within this context. 2 See Rambam, Mishneh
Torah, Hilchot Shemittah v’Yovel 13:12,13 who
articulates this principal and, furthermore, extends this
idea of devotion, at least conceptually, to apply to any
individual who wishes to accept this focus,
responsibility and challenge. 3 The first born participated
in the Sin of the Golden Calf while the Leviim did
not. 4 See, further, Rabbi
Yehuda Nachshoni, Devarim, Parshat Ki Teitzei 1,
“Yerusha Pi Shnayim L’Bechor. 5 See, further, Encyclopediat
Talmudit 3:276-283, Bechor Adam. 6 While the Chashmonaim
dynasty presents itself as an exception to this rule,
while originally looked upon favourably as a response to
an emergency situation, the maintaining of this union of kehuna
and melucha was looked upon most negatively by Chazal.
7 See, further, Nechama
Leibowitz, Studies in Shemot, Terumah 1. (c) Nishma, 2009
Return to top |
© 2006 NISHMA