Since he taught them what he had learned. Otherwise [i.e. if the Torah did not say this], what relevance does this point have here. Thus Rashi explains that ביום דיבר (lit. on the day that He spoke) means “from the day that He spoke,” and that the letter beis is like the beis in והנותר בבשר ובלחם (that which is left from the meat and from the bread) (Vayikro 8:32). It was not on the day that Hashem spoke to Moshe on Har Sinai that he taught them, rather from that day onwards he taught them and thus they became his descendants. One might ask: Surely all of Israel learned Torah from Moshe, so why were they not [also] called his descendants? The answer is: When he taught Torah to the whole of Yisroel it was at the command of Hashem, as it is written “Hashem said to Moshe come up to me … that I wrote to instruct them” (Shemos 24:12). This implies that the main reason for Hashem teaching Moshe was for [Moshe to teach] the people of Yisroel. Therefore it is not correct to say that [regarding them that] “one who teaches another’s son…” However regarding Aharon’s sons, Moshe was not obligated to teach them, given that only a father is obligated to teach his son Torah, therefore they were called the descendants of Moshe. This appears to the precise meaning of the wording “anyone who teaches another’s son Torah…”

During his lifetime. There are texts that read “In the presence of Aharon their father— during his lifetime.” One might ask: Why did Rashi explain “during his lifetime.” The answer is that if he had not explained so, one would say that this was after his death, because they were not fitting to serve when [Aharon] was present. Therefore Rashi explains, in the presence of Aharon their father, in his lifetime they were made Kohanim Gadolim, meaning that if Aharon became impure then Elazar would serve, and if Elazar became impure then Isamar would serve (Tanchuma).

They shall preserve. These are not two topics — that they would serve, and also preserve their guardianship, because there is no other service aside from the guarding of the sanctuary which was the service of Aharon and his sons.

For assistance. Meaning for the holy service, but not for mundane work. Rashi’s proof is from that which is mentioned in Parshas Korach, “that I have given you a gift to perform the work of the Tent of Meeting” (Bamidbar 18:6). From there one may infer that it was specifically for holy service, but not for the mundane.

From [among] the rest of the entire congregation. Rashi is answering the question: The term מאת בני ישראל (from the Bnei Yisroel) implies that they were under the ownership of the Bnei Yisroel and that they gave them to the Kohanim, but this was not the case. Furthermore, the Torah writes “Behold! I have taken the Levites from among Bnei Yisroel…” (v. 12) implying that Hashem was the one who gave them, not Bnei Yisroel. Thus Rashi explains that this is to be understood as מתוך (from among).

She bore her, yet she is counted. You might ask: Previously the Torah writes “from the age of one month and above” (Bamidbar 1:49) meaning that when they can no longer be categorized as stillborn they were counted. The answer is that here she certainly was not considered stillborn because [it was clear from birth that] she had completed her months [of gestation], therefore she was counted from the time of birth, before thirty days. (Gur Aryeh) It was specifically there that she was counted in the womb because she certainly was not to be considered stillborn — because when the Torah was written in the days of Moshe she had already passed the stage where there was a question that she might be considered stillborn. Therefore Yocheved was counted immediately. In addition, even though they were counted here through Divine Inspiration, he did not want to count them until they had completed one month in order not to make distinctions.

How can I enter. (Gur Aryeh) This raises a difficulty: Was it due to the effort involved that he did not wish to enter their tents? In other words, was that [the reason why] they were counted according to the word of Hashem? It appears that the explanation is that because it is dishonorable for a scholar to enter a tent where there are women, therefore he said “How can I enter into their tents…?”

The family of Livni. There are texts that read “the first was to explain who his children were”. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the Torah write this twice, since above it is written “these are the names of Gershon’s sons…” (v. 18)? He answers that the first time was to explain who his children were, and the second was to say that for Gershon the family of Livni and the family of Shim’i numbered so many and so many. According to our text one may also explain, that the verse does not come to inform us who his families were, since we already knew this. Rather this verse comes to inform us that the count of the families of Livni and Shim’i were so many and so many — as if it had said “Of Gershon the family of Livni and the family of Shim’i which are the families of Gershon — their numbers were so many and so many.”

Their numbers were so many and so many. Rashi is answering the question: The term “Of Gershon, the family of Livni” implies that Gershon was from the family of Livni and this is not the case, because the family of Livni was from the family of Gershon. Therefore he explains “Meaning, of Gershon those who were counted…”

The lower drapes. Why were they called the Mishkon — because they were seen from inside when one stood in the Mishkon. Furthermore, the Torah writes “You shall make the Mishkon — ten drapes…” (Shemos 26:1) which refers to the lowest of the four covers, not to the Mishkon as a whole, as in “You shall erect the Mishkon” (Shemos 26:30) (Re’m).

The goats’ hair drapes. Why was this called the אהל (tent) — because it made an אהל (roof) over the lower drapes.

Ram skins. You might ask: Why is it written “its cover” which implies that the ram and tachash skins were all one cover, while elsewhere it implies that each one was a separate cover on its own. The answer is that each one was certainly a separate material in of itself, however they were joined together in the middle and therefore they were both called “the cover”. Furthermore, you might ask: Shouldn’t the Torah have called them “the tent” since they too formed a roof over the goats’ hair drapes? The answer is that the goats’ hair drapes can understandably be called “the tent,” because they covered the top and the sides of the Mishkon they protected it from every direction. However the red ram and tachash skins only covered the top of the Mishkon, therefore they were called “the cover”.

The drape. This is a [vertical] partition that divides, not something that was spread on top as the term מסך implies.

Of the Mishkon and the tent. Because the sons of Merari carried the ropes of the enclosure. See Rashi to Parshas Naso (Bamidbar 4:32).

Woe to the wicked. The question is widely raised: Why does Rashi explain all of this here? The answer is that he is answering the question: Why did the Torah not write “the families of the children of הקהתי (the Kehosites)” as it writes in the next verse — “of the families of the Kehosites,” and above (v. 27) — “these are the families of the Kehosites”? He explains that this was because “Near them was the banner of Reuven…” They sinned and they caused the congregation to sin, thus it was not correct to write the Name [of Hashem] — with the hei at the beginning and the yud at the end together with their name. (The letters yud hei together comprise one of Hashem’s names.)

And two hundred and fifty men together with Korach. Most of them were from the tribe of Reuven, as we see later in Parshas Korach. It is written in Gur Aryeh that Rashi comes to explain why regarding the children of Gershon the Torah writes (v. 23) “behind the Mishkon they shall camp, on the west” and regarding the children of Merori it states (v. 35) “on the side of the Mishkon they shall camp, on the north”. However here it is written “they shall camp on the side of the Mishkon, on the south” [without juxtaposing the word יחנו (they shall camp)] to the word לתימנה (on the south). This is to teach that the Torah here does not come to instruct them to camp on the south, rather they were already to the south, and it is as if the Torah had written “they shall camp on the side of the Mishkon where they are presently camping”. And for what reason does the Torah teach this? — To say that “This is why they were drawn…”

Appointed over all of them. The language in the verse implies that he was like one of the other leaders, (a leader of the leaders of Levi) and no more. This is so because in the word ונשיא (the leader) the vav is vowelized with a shuruk (וּנשיא) which means that it is connected to the word following (the leaders), otherwise it should have been vowelized with a shva under the vav and a kometz under the nun (וְנָשיא). Therefore Rashi needed to explain that “He was appointed…”

Near them. (Gur Aryeh) Here too, Rashi comes to answer the question: It should have stated “Moshe, Aharon and his sons shall camp in front of the Tent of Meeting.” However the Torah is not coming to instruct them, only to inform that those who camped in front of the Tent of Meeting were these important individuals, therefore those people who camped near them were like them.

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.

For them to release themselves. (Nachalas Yaakov) I have a difficulty with this: How can one say that the redemption of five shekolim would apply to the firstborn Levites? Surely the main reason for the redemption was that initially the firstborn were sanctified to perform the service of the offerings. However, since they sinned in the incident with the golden calf they were invalidated to perform the service, and their sanctity was transferred to the Levites who were not involved in the sin with the calf. This was the redemption of their sanctity; therefore the Torah says that those 273 remaining firstborn, whose sanctity did not have anyone to whom to be transferred, would have their sanctity removed by the giving of five shekolim. And [the removal of sanctity in this manner] is just like any sanctified property, which can be redeemed with money. But if this were the case, the firstborn Levites who were not involved in the sin with the calf would not have had their sanctity invalidated, so why then did they need to be redeemed? Consequently the question remains: Why did the two hundred and seventy-three firstborn need to give five shekolim, given that there were three hundred Levites. The explanation appears to be that we know that sanctified property cannot redeem sanctified property, rather mundane property redeems sanctified property and the sanctity becomes attached to the mundane property. However it is not possible for sanctified property to redeem sanctified property, since it is already sanctified. Similarly here, the twenty-two thousand Levites were ‘mundane’ until now; therefore the sanctity of the firstborn could be transferred to them. However the three hundred Levites who were firstborn and who were not involved in the sin with the calf, remained in their sanctified state for service, thus they could not take the place of the firstborn since they were already fit to serve in the Mishkon. Therefore, a firstborn could not release another firstborn and they needed to redeem their sanctity with five shekolim.

But [they did redeem] the firstlings of their donkeys. There are those who explain that Rashi is answering the question: If the verse refers to kosher animals it would not be possible to redeem them, because the sanctity of a firstborn would not be released given that the kohanim themselves were obligated regarding the sanctity of the first animals. One may say further that Rashi’s proof is from Parshas Bo where it is written “and every firstling donkey you shall redeem with a sheep… and every firstborn man you shall redeem” (Shemos 13:13), thus here it also refers to [the redemption of a firstborn man, and] the firstborn animal, refers solely to the firstling donkeys. (Re’m) This is puzzling: Surely Rashi himself explains differently in the first chapter of Bechoros (4a), concerning Rava’s challenge to Abaye. [Rava says:] If you are correct, that one can learn a kal vachomer (a fortiori reasoning) from the case of an animal then the Levites should be exempt from the redemption of firstborn kosher animals! [Since the Levites’ kosher animals are not exempt, Abaye’s kal vachomer must also be false.] – [there Rashi explains:] because their kosher animals released the kosher animals of the Israelites. The matter requires investigation. However perhaps the answer is that the challenge made by Rava upon Abaye was only according his own reasoning, however Abaye disagrees and holds that the animals of the Levites did not redeem the kosher firstborn animals of the Israelites. See Minchas Yehudah.

But did not count the extra animals. (Re’m) It is puzzling how he brought this proof which the Talmud (Bechoros 4b) had already negated? The Talmud [disproved this by saying] that perhaps the [Levites] had many animals which were equal in number to the firstborn [animals] of the Israelites. [The Talmud] brings another proof: The verse says ואת בהמת הלוים תחת בהמתם (lit. and the animal of the Levites instead of the Israelites’ animals) implying that one animal was in place of many. Because if you would think that ואת בהמת הלוים refers to many animals, then the verse should have either written בהמת both times or בהמתם both times. [However since it changed its language,] we see that one animal exempted many. He answers that Rashi discarded the second proof because it was far from the simple reading of the verse, and therefore he brought the first proof.

Take five shekolim. In order that you do not err and say that “the פדויי (redemption) of the 273…” is to be explained like “those whose numbers were in excess of those פדויי (redeemed) through the Levites” (v. 49). There Rashi explains that [the word פדויי] refers to “those redeemed by the very presence of the Levites.” Thus you might think that you should also take five shekolim from them. Therefore, Rashi explained that “the redemption of the 273…” refers to the firstborn who required redemption, because they did not have anyone to redeem them and from them you should “take five shekolim from each individual.”

Twenty-two thousand slips. Meaning pieces of paper. Similarly “inscribed in a book” (Iyov 19:23), is translated by the Targum as בפתקא יתרשמון, meaning “on slips they shall be noted.” (Divrei Dovid) This is the view of Rabbi Yehudah, however Rabbi Nechemyah questions this: If all of the slips marked “Levite” were gone and I drew one —what would I get? Who could tell me that if there had been a “Levite” slip there, that I would not have merited it? Rather Moshe did the following: He wrote upon twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three slips “Levite,” and upon two hundred and seventy-three slips [he wrote] “five shekolim.” Re’m writes that one may even question this: Even so, the last ones to draw could say that if they had drawn first when there were many “Levite” slips — twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three and only two hundred and seventy-three “five shekolim” slips — who could say that they would not have drawn “Levite” slips, based on the dictum, כל מה דפריש מרובא קפריש — “whatever is separated [from a group] is [assumed to have been] separated from the majority [of the group].” Apparently the answer is that whoever drew a slip would then toss it back into the container so that the number of slips there was always equal. However this raises the difficulty: If so, perhaps all of them would draw a “Levite” slip, one after the other and the initial problem would remain. One cannot say that as soon as twenty-two thousand “Levite” slips had been drawn, the remaining would be “five shekolim” slips and they would inevitably be required to redeem themselves. Because if so who would want to draw last instead of drawing first. Unless we say that they drew according to their age or their importance, which is difficult to propose. There are those who answer that it is known that whatever Moshe did was through Divine Inspiration, therefore there were no complaints. However this is untenable, because if so why was there a lottery at all; let Moshe say to each person “You are obliged to redeem yourself,” and “You are exempt,” all through Divine Inspiration. However, it appears to me that [this whole question is really] no difficulty: At the end of the first chapter of Kesubos we establish that כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה דמי — “anything that is fixed [in a single location] is considered to be half in half.” This is so even where it leads to a leniency, such as a case where someone threw a rock into a group of ten people comprising nine Jews and one was a gentile. Even if the person killed is a Jew the thrower is exempt from the death penalty because the one gentile who was among them (being viewed as a fixed group) is considered as if he comprised half of the group. This law was clear to every Jew in all matters and therefore there would have been no complaint here. Even if the minority of the slips had been marked “Levite,” since the [slips of paper] were fixed [in a single location] there they would have been considered as numerous as the majority. Nachalas Yaakov explains that the Talmud Yerushalmi writes that the slips came out alternately, one “Levite” and one “five shekolim” in a miraculous fashion.