Va'eira The Mixed Blessings of Shevet Levi

Rashi 5:4 brings (Medrash Rabba Shemos 5:20 and Tanchuma Va'eira 6) that the tribe of Levi was not enslaved in Mitzrayim.  

(The Ramban (5:4) implies that Pharaoh left Shevet Levi alone because, as Machiavelli and Marx also noted, an undisturbed clergy class is a tool that maintains social order, which, for Pharaoh, facilitated the efficient exploitation of the Ivrim. Other mefarshim give many other reasons for Levi's exemption.)

In the census of Bamidbar 3:14, the Ramban points out that the tribe of Levi was minuscule: the number of Leviim in the above-twenty group was not even half of the smallest of the other tribes.  He says that this anomaly cannot be attributed to the dangers of carrying the Aron, because at the time of that census they had not yet carried the Aron.  So, he explains that this is a consequence of the above-cited Medrash.  The passuk in Shemos 1:12 says, וְכַאֲשֶׁר יְעַנּוּ אֹתוֹ כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרֹץ "as they oppressed them, so did they multiply and so did they spread."  This means that when Pharaoh enacted his genocidal measures, Hashem said "We shall see whose words will be fulfilled," and engendered in the people a  supernatural fecundity.  The tribe of Levi, which was not subject to the same oppression, was never blessed with this miraculous growth.  Levi only grew at a natural rate, and so they remained the least of the tribes.

(I saw an excellent pshat in Rabbi Bukspan's sefer אבני קודש / Classics and Beyond / Parsha Pearls, from Feldheim. He quotes Rabbi Yosef Kalatsky as saying that at the moment of Yetzias Mitzrayim, Klal Yisrael needed to comprise 600,000 adult men and, I assume, an equal number of women. Since the onerous treatment of the Jews subtracted years from the gzeira of 400, it became necessary to speed up the natural growth in order to reach the number of 600,000 in time. Thus, the relationship of "the worse the suffering" to "the quicker they multiplied," was not direct causality. It was indirect.  The way it goes is:
a. the geula required a critical mass, a population of 600,000.
b. that number would, under natural circumstances have been reached after 400 years; 
c. harsher treatment subtracted years from the gzeira of 400 all the way down to 210;
d. 210 years was not enough for natural population growth to reach 600,000;
e. therefore, quicker geula necessitated supernaturally fast population growth.
Rabbi Kalatsky's pshat is, as always, a shining example of klorkait and havanna, but it is not consistent with this Ramban, which is fine. According to Rabbi Kalatsky, even though Shevet Levi didn't personally share the inuy, the "historical mandate" that sped up the population growth should have applied to them as well. They were Jews, and they counted among the 600,000. According to the Ramban, the inuy directly caused the fecundity. No inuy, no yirbeh v'yifrotz.)

The Ramban also suggests that perhaps the size of Shevet Levi was a result of Yaakov's anger for Levi's behavior in the episode of Dinah.  Although Shimon was equally involved, and Shimon was a large tribe at this point, Shimon was later diminished by a plague that struck them prior to entering the land of Israel, and ultimately was of a size similar to that of Levi.  The final tally was the same for both tribes, but Shimon's fate was worse- to have grown quickly and to be diminished quickly through plague.  Levi was favored, in a sense, in that they simply remained few from beginning to end. 

NOTE:

I don't know why nobody else says this, but the fact is that there's another reason Shevet Levi was so small - they died fighting for kiddush hashem more than anyone else. This happened several times, such as  מי לה' אלי (Shemos 32:26-7) after the Eigel, but the strongest example we have of their grievous losses in war is the Yerushalmi (Yoma 1:1) Rashi brings (in Bamidbar 26:13.) The Yerushalmi says that when Aharon died, the Ananim dissipated and the Knaanim attacked them, and some of the Jews wanted to run back to Mitzrayim. Shevet Levi ran after them, and in the battle to bring them back, four families of Levi were wiped out, or were so diminished that they were absorbed into other families.  Rashi -

וּמָצָאתִי בְתַלְמוּד יְרוּשַׁלְמִי שֶׁכְּשֶׁמֵּת אַהֲרֹן נִסְתַּלְּקוּ עַנְנֵי כָבוֹד, וּבָאוּ הַכְּנַעֲנִים לְהִלָּחֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְנָתְנוּ לֵב לַחֲזֹר לְמִצְרַיִם, וְחָזְרוּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם שְׁמוֹנֶה מַסָּעוֹת — מֵהֹר הָהָר לְמוֹסֵרָה — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נָסְעוּ מִבְּאֵרֹת בְּנֵי יַעֲקָן מוֹסֵרָה שָׁם מֵת אַהֲרֹן" (דברים י'), וַהֲלֹא בְהֹר הָהָר מֵת וּמִמּוֹסֵרָה עַד הֹר הָהָר שְׁמוֹנֶה מַסָּעוֹת יֵשׁ לְמַפְרֵעַ? אֶלָּא שֶׁחָזְרוּ לַאֲחוֹרֵיהֶם וְרָדְפוּ בְנֵי לֵוִי אַחֲרֵיהֶם לְהַחֲזִירָם וְהָרְגוּ מֵהֶם שֶׁבַע מִשְׁפָּחוֹת, וּמִבְּנֵי לֵוִי נָפְלוּ אַרְבַּע מִשְׁפָּחוֹת: מִשְׁפַּחַת שִׁמְעִי וְעֻזִּיאֵלִי, וּמִבְּנֵי יִצְהָר לֹא נִמְנוּ כָּאן אֶלָּא מִשְׁפַּחַת הַקָּרְחִי, וְהָרְבִיעִית לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מַה הִיא (תלמוד ירושלמי סוטה א'); וְרַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא דָרַשׁ שֶׁמֵּתוּ בַּמַּגֵּפָה בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם, אֲבָל לְפִי הַחִסָּרוֹן שֶׁחָסַר מִשֵּׁבֶט שִׁמְעוֹן בְּמִנְיָן זֶה מִמִּנְיָן הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, נִרְאֶה שֶׁכָּל כ"ד אֶלֶף נָפְלוּ מִשִּׁבְטוֹ שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן:

Do you realize what that means? Levi had a maximum of eleven families, and here, four were wiped out.

This all sheds light upon an issue that arose in Vayeitzei, Breishis 29:35.  Leah had a third child, and  וַתֹּאמֶר עַתָּה הַפַּעַם יִלָּוֶה אִישִׁי אֵלַי כִּי יָלַדְתִּי לוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה בָנִים עַל כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמוֹ לֵוִי:  Rashi says that whenever the words עַל כֵּן Ahl Kein are used, that child's family became unusually numerous

 כל מי שנאמר בו על כן מרובה באוכלוסין 

(see notes at end of post).  If so, wonders Rashi, why does the phrase occur in reference to Levi, the most meager of the tribes?  Rashi answers, from the Medrash Rabba 71:4, that the responsibility of carrying the Aron involved an extremely high-risk: the slightest distraction of inappropriate thought would result in immediate punishment (similar to the Kohen Gadol in the Kodesh Kadashim on Yom Kippur), and this resulted in the thinning out of the tribe of Levi. 

כל מי שנאמר בו על כן מרובה באוכלוסין חוץ מלוי, שהארון היה מכלה בהם   

Thus, although they were given the bracha of ahl kein, it was counter-balanced by the danger of the Aron.

Everybody (as we saw in the Ramban) asks on the Rashi/Medrash that you can't blame their low census on the Aron alone, since the tribe was already disproportionately small at the time they left Mitzrayim, long before they began carrying the Aron.  Obviously, their low number is connected to the Ramban's other pshat, that not having been enslaved, they did not share the concomitant bracha.  Why, then, does the Medrash attribute the difference to the Aron?  You have to say that the Medrash means that even after they left Mitzrayim, and the bracha on the other shevatim that wasn't shared by Levi ended, their rate of growth remained lower than the others because of the Aron.

This works if you say that the initial disparity was based on the absence of the כַאֲשֶׁר יְעַנּוּ אֹתוֹ כֵּן יִרְבֶּה.  Even after they all left Mitzrayim and that factor ended, the Aron explains their continued low rate of growth.  But if, as the Ramban says in his second pshat, it was based on Yaakov's anger, I would think that Yaakov's anger would remain a factor even after they left Mitzrayim.  Why, then, does the Medrash say it was because of the Aron?  

I think we can use the same approach according to the Ramban's second pshat as well.  The deleterious effect of Yaakov's anger should have ended when they thoroughly overcame the character flaw that led to what they did in Shechem, as demonstrated by their elevation to eternal service of Hashem in the Mikdash and in teaching Torah. Ironically, this transcendence, this teshuva shleima, that should have finally invoked the bracha of כל מי שנאמר בו על כן מרובה באוכלוסין, earned them the job of carrying the Aron.  And ultimately, it was the Aron that limited their number.  (Although Levi's destiny was already evident during Yaakov's lifetime, as the Rambam indicates at the end of the first perek of Hilchos Avodas Kochavim, this was not the same as the irrevocable change that occurred when they were forever designated as eternal Klei Kodesh.)  

How ironic!   When they finally redeemed themselves, when they finally earned an end to the negative effect of Yaakov's anger, they were rewarded with the job of carrying the Aron, which served to keep them in the same position as before.

This often occurs often in Tanach, and probably in life as well.  (Consider, for example, Rashi that says that the 'sin' of Meriva was more in the way of an excuse to keep Moshe from entering Eretz Yisrael.)  The ultimate state is always attained, but the means, the method, the reason, is plastic.  Pardon the odd word, but it precisely describes this thought:  Life is teleological; or as de Chardin put it, orthogenic.  A purpose, a tachlis, draws events towards it like a magnet.  Things might happen be'tufim uv'mcholos, and they might happen b'shalshe'la'os shel barzel (Shabbos 89b).  But they're going to happen no matter what.  A long time ago, a wise man expressed this idea like this: 

Imagine not being able to distinguish the real cause, from that without which the cause would not be able to act, as a cause. It is what the majority appear to do, like people groping in the dark; they call it a cause, thus giving it a name that does not belong to it. 

Hashem's will was that Levi would be a small Shevet.  That was the REASON that they were small. What was the MECHANISM of keeping them small? At first, this required end arose from either their freedom from avdus or Yaakov's anger.  When those reasons no longer pertained, another reason arose that had the same effect- the danger of carrying the Aron Kodesh, or casualties resulting from their zealousness to avenge chillul hashem.

I think that the most important lesson is that you have to ask the question carefully and thoughtfully. The question "Why was Shevet Levi so small" is completely different that the question "How was it that Shevet Levi was so small."


What was the REASON Shevet Levi was so small?
Probably because they did not own much land, and were not self-supporting, so a larger tribe would be a burden on Klal Yisrael, so Hashem wanted the tribe to remain small. 

SEPARATELY, what was the MECHANISM of keeping Shevet Levi small?

1. Yaakov's anger for their behavior in the story of Dinah, or 

2. they did not experience the inuy of avdus and so did not get the bracha of yirbeh v'yifrotz; or
3. the dangers of carrying the Aron; or
4. their self sacrifice in battles against chillul hashem, such as post-eigel and post-ananim.

(We have discussed this concept elsewhere.)

So, is this idea of any practical use?  Does it make life easier or harder or more comprehensible?  Can we ever know what we can change and what we can't, what is written in pencil and what in stone?  I don't know, probably none of the three.   But it's a good thought to have available.  You might need it someday.  I remember that once I met my Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Rudderman ztz'l, on the train going from Baltimore to New York.  He asked me why I was going, I told him to go out with a girl, and he said that the Ribono shel Olam wanted me in New York, and that I can't know for sure why.  What I thought of as the reason was not necessarily the true reason.  Who knows?  Maybe the reason was so I could have that conversation with Rav Rudderman.

Notes: 

• First: this siman bracha in the words עַל כֵּן is the reason we find them in many places, such as a bris and kiddush on Shabbos.   On an auspicious occasion, we like to use these special words.  I'm just surprised that we don't find them anywhere in the public Sheva Brachos or the nusach of nisuin.  It is in the bracha of אשר צג, though.                                                                                                                                     
  
• Second: What is it about the the words Ahl Kein that invokes or indicates  מרובה  באוכלוסין, great numbers?  The Mefarshim in Parshas Vayeitzei (the Gur Aryeh and others) say many pshatim, none of which are I find convincing.  (see Gur Aryeh, Levush Ha'orah, and Sifsei Chacahmim in Vayeitzei 29:34)  When we discussed this at our kiddush, Reb Yitzchak Resnik said the answer is simple: the first time the phrase occurs is (Bereishis 2:24) in connection with the mitzva of Pirya Verivya.  Therefore, or we could say Ahl Kein, the phrase implies a bracha of pirya verivya. His answer is definitely correct, but doesn't eliminate the question entirely, because we still need to find why these particular words were chosen to convey this bracha.  Reb Avrohom Wagner said "
  Perhaps "al kein" means (taken literally) "on a base", i.e. well-founded, strongly rooted. This is the only way for a ribbui b'kamus to not inevitably lead to a miut b'eichus."                                                                                                                                                                                                           
• Third: All the explanations for Levi's exemption from servitude are informed speculation: we have no clear mesora as to the real reason.  But whatever the reason was, it couldn't have been good enough to prevent the other Shevatim from resenting Shevet Levi.  True, Levi must have somehow fulfilled the nevu'ah of avdus and inui that was foretold at the Bris Bein Habesarim, but whatever avdus and inui they had was very different than the avdus and inui of the rest of the Bnei Yisrael.  As my father zatzal said, everyone is mekayeim "בְּזֵעַת אַפֶּיךָ תֹּאכַל לֶחֶם", by the sweat of your brow you will eat bread, but some fulfill it by shoveling gravel in the hot sun, and some fulfill it when the air conditioner in their office breaks.  Imagine being brutally worked, and seeing  your cousins sitting and learning and counseling all day.  There's enough Ayin Hara and resentment from the people who drive a jalopy and watch their neighbor cruise down the street in a Land Rover.  It couldn't have generated a lot of love among the two classes.   I would suggest  that this ayin hara contributed to Levi's relatively small numbers.                                                              

The original version was posted in 2010. Like all the posts here, it is constantly being edited and updated. 

After the original posting, we received the following comments. (At that time, before I married my children off, the blog was anonymous, and I went by "b.")  I don't want to lose them, so here they are.

1. DanielDecember 28, 2010 at 3:27 AM

   I enjoyed the question.
   
   In my opinion, the Gur Aryeh is fully aware of your thinking. His answers are not convincing to you b/c they are referencing concepts of a deeper nature and that's why he ends off by insisting דבר זה מופלא ואמת.
   
   You will note the שם/בנים connection in יבום among many others.
2. 
   bDecember 28, 2010 at 8:26 AM

   For those of you that don't have access to the Gur Aryeh, this is what he says:
   
   Ahl Kein means there is a stronger and more compelling connection between the person and the name. That stronger connection results in bracha.
   
   Daniel is pointing out that this connection is based on the idea that "Shem" is associated with procreation. We see this concept in the parsha of Yibum, where children are called the shem of the deceased, and we see it in the naming of the animals in Bereishis, and we also see it in the haftara of Taaneisim, where it says "venasati lahem yad veshem."
   
   OK, good point. But it would be nice if the Maharal would have mentioned the first appearance of Ahl Kein. Also, it's hard to read it into Rashi, who says it's a din in Ahl Kein, not in the connection to the naming per se.
3. 
   DanielDecember 28, 2010 at 10:06 AM

   Don't know if I agree that's it's difficult to read in Rashi. Rashi's comment is only in reference to the על כן by the NAMING of the שבטים and in that context he says "מרובה באוכלוסין". Clearly it does not fit into the other על כן of the Torah.
   
   Putting that aside, while the Maharal does separate 3 answers I see them all as being related. You've only mentioned the 3rd. The first explains intrinsically the logic. Note: כן used in connoting manifestation of finiteness/limitation as in ויהי כן.
4. 
   
   DanielDecember 28, 2010 at 10:18 AM

   fyi, anyone who wants can download the Gur Aryeh here: http://hebrewbooks.org/14210
5. 
   ChatzkelDecember 28, 2010 at 12:41 PM

   Your vort changed from the way it was when you first put it up. It's much better now.
   
   What brocho is asher tzag?
6. 
   bDecember 28, 2010 at 1:05 PM

   Correct. I change my posts constantly, sometimes in response to comments, sometimes when I read them myself.
   
   Asher Tzag is a bracha the chasan makes the first night of the wedding. Some say it, some don't.

   ReplyDelete
7. 
   bDecember 28, 2010 at 1:10 PM

   Asher Tzag can be found in the Tur, EH 63. The Aruch Hashulchan says the minhag is not to say it, so anyone that does better do it without sheim umalchus.
8. 
   AnonymousDecember 31, 2010 at 3:59 PM

   I seem to recall a medrash that says Bnei Yisrael became slaves slowly. They were enticed by Pharoah into doing extra work for extra pay when their flocks did not need tending. Shevet Levi used the time to learn Torah instead.
9. 
   LkwdGuyJanuary 3, 2011 at 9:39 AM

   The Aruch Hashulchan says the minhag is not to say it, so anyone that does better do it without sheim umalchus.
   
   Or maybe "say" the shem u'malchus b'hirhur.
   
   (heard from my rav yesterday in relation to baruch she'patrani)
10. 
    bJanuary 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM

    Anonymous of December 31- interesting pshat. It didn't appeal to me at first, but maybe I can hear it- since the Rambam says that Shevet Levi was always dedicated to harbatzas Torah, it stands to reason that they would prefer to spend their time in avodas hashem than in, as you say, "earning extra money."

    
    

    LkwdGuy, what about saying רחמנא מלכא מרא דעלמא, as the Aruch Hashulchan says in קסז:כ and רב:ג.

    
    

    I had a excellent experience yesterday. I was talking to my son, who learns in the Dirshu Chabura in Lakewood, and he told me how much he enjoys the Aruch Hashulchan, because he explains how the poskim learn the Gemara and the svaros to favor one over the other. I said that learning the Aruch Hashulchan is like listening to a symphony. He asked if I had every read his introduction, and I said no, and he said that in the introduction, Rav Epstein says that he chose his style over simple halacha pesuka, like the Mechaber and the Chayei Adam, because Torah is a Shira, and the beauty of a shira is the different sounds being made at the same time.  (I found the Aruch Hashulchan - I think some editions do not have the hakdama, so here it is:                                                                             וכל מחלוקת התנאים והאמוראים, והגאונים והפוסקים באמת, למבין דבר לאשורו – דברי אלקים חיים המה, ולכולם יש פנים בהלכה. ואדרבה: זאת היא תפארת תורתינו הקדושה והטהורה. וכל התורה כולה נקראת "שירה", ותפארת השיר היא כשהקולות משונים זה מזה, וזהו עיקר הנעימות. ומי שמשוטט בים התלמוד – יראה נעימות משונות בכל הקולות המשונות זה מזה 

    LkwdGuyJanuary 3, 2011 at 11:45 AM
11. The beauty of doing it my way is that no one knows what i do b'hirhur. I can say "baruch", pause for a breath (it can even sound like I'm getting choked up) while 'saying' b'hirhur "ato Hashem Elokainu melech ha'olam", and then continue with "she'potrani etc.
    
    Your option will get me stoned.

    
12. bJanuary 3, 2011 at 12:20 PM

    To be honest, I'm pretty sure that neither Reb Moshe nor Rav Rudderman liked the בריך רחמנא מלכא מרא דעלמא option, one because poretz geder on Chazal's nusach, the other because it's no less sheim levatala when it's used to refer to Hashem. Hirhur, on the other hand, is kedibur in tefilla, at least according to the Rambam.