(כד) זֹ֣את עֲבֹדַ֔ת מִשְׁפְּחֹ֖ת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּ֑י לַעֲבֹ֖ד וּלְמַשָּֽׂא׃ (כה) וְנָ֨שְׂא֜וּ אֶת־יְרִיעֹ֤ת הַמִּשְׁכָּן֙ וְאֶת־אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד מִכְסֵ֕הוּ וּמִכְסֵ֛ה הַתַּ֥חַשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָלָ֖יו מִלְמָ֑עְלָה וְאֶ֨ת־מָסַ֔ךְ פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃ (כו) וְאֵת֩ קַלְעֵ֨י הֶֽחָצֵ֜ר וְאֶת־מָסַ֣ךְ ׀ פֶּ֣תַח ׀ שַׁ֣עַר הֶחָצֵ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּ֤ן וְעַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙ סָבִ֔יב וְאֵת֙ מֵֽיתְרֵיהֶ֔ם וְאֶֽת־כׇּל־כְּלֵ֖י עֲבֹדָתָ֑ם וְאֵ֨ת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֧ר יֵעָשֶׂ֛ה לָהֶ֖ם וְעָבָֽדוּ׃ (כז) עַל־פִּי֩ אַהֲרֹ֨ן וּבָנָ֜יו תִּהְיֶ֗ה כׇּל־עֲבֹדַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּ֔י לְכׇ֨ל־מַשָּׂאָ֔ם וּלְכֹ֖ל עֲבֹדָתָ֑ם וּפְקַדְתֶּ֤ם עֲלֵהֶם֙ בְּמִשְׁמֶ֔רֶת אֵ֖ת כׇּל־מַשָּׂאָֽם׃ (כח) זֹ֣את עֲבֹדַ֗ת מִשְׁפְּחֹ֛ת בְּנֵ֥י הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּ֖י בְּאֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וּמִ֨שְׁמַרְתָּ֔ם בְּיַד֙ אִֽיתָמָ֔ר בֶּֽן־אַהֲרֹ֖ן הַכֹּהֵֽן׃ {ס}
Rashi and Ibn Ezra clarify in both passsges that these are the same responsibilities. So why repeat them twice?
(32) The head chieftain of the Levites was Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, in charge of those attending to the duties of the sanctuary.
(א) ונשיא נשיאי הלוי הנה היו להם ג' נשיאים לג' בתי אבות וחוץ מזה היו אהרן ובניו פוקדי' בעניני המקדש כמ"ש [ד כז] עפ"י אהרן ובניו תהיה, והיה איתמר ממונה על בני גרשון ומררי כמ"ש [ד כח לג] ואלעזר היה נשיא על כל הנשיאים השלשה, וגם עליו היה מוטל פקודת שומרי משמרת הקדש
Prince of the princes of the Levites. Behold, there were three princes for the three ancestral houses and outside of that Aaron and his sons were responsible for the aspects of the temple (Num 4:27 - All the duties of the Gershonites, all their porterage and all their service, shall be performed on orders from Aaron and his sons; you shall make them responsible for attending to all their porterage.). In spite of the fact that Aaron and his sons were there, Itamar was responsible for the children of Gershon and Merari (Num 4:28 and 33 - Those are the duties of the Gershonite clans for the Tent of Meeting; they shall attend to them under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest AND Those are the duties of the Merarite clans, pertaining to their various duties in the Tent of Meeting under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron the priest.) and Eliezer was the prince of all three of the princes and also he was obligated in directly guarding the guardians of the holy.
Prince of the princes of the Levites. That he was the head of the three princes of the three families.
Prince of the princes of the Levites. Thus this is a great honor. In every place where we recognize two names next to each other with the same [Hebrew] root we should see that this is a great exaggeration, as is when we read: host of heaven. (Deut 10:17)
AT THE COMMANDMENT OF AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL BE ALL THE SERVICE OF THE SONS OF THE GERSHONITES — “and which of Aaron’s sons shall be appointed over them? Ithamar” [as is stated in the following verse]. This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct for [if only Ithamar was appointed], why mention Aaron [at all — at the commandment of Aaron etc.]? Rather, the meaning of [the expression] at the commandment of Aaron and his sons shall be all the service is that the services of the Gershonites shall be at their command. They are to appoint the Gershonites to their work, saying: “This particular Gershonite shall be the overseer for such-and-such a matter” — “This one shall sing [at the services] in such-and-such a way, or attend to the gates in a certain manner, or shall carry a certain number of the curtains.” At the time of journeying they were also not permitted to dismantle the Tabernacle or to begin loading it until Aaron and his sons commanded them to do so. Thus all of them [Aaron and his sons] were needed for the appointed charge, Eleazar being the chief over the three princes [of the three main families of the Levites], and Ithamar being the overseer over the sons of Gershon and Merari.
Scripture states and ‘ye’ shall appoint unto them in charge [all which they have to carry] because Moses was to be with them at the time of the appointments, when the charges were given to them; but their charge shall be under the hand of Ithamar, meaning that each one was to return the vessels to his control when the Tabernacle came to rest, saying to him: “Here you have the vessels that were handed over to me.”
(1) ואתה הפקד את הלוים על משכן העדות, “and you are to appoint the Levites as in charge of the Tabernacle of Testimony, etc.” This whole verse is the explanation of verse 49 in which Moses had been told not to include the Levites in the census for the army. God now explains that the reason why the Levites were not to be counted with the other twelve tribes was not their ineligibility but on the contrary, it was their superior position which required them to be counted separately. Seeing it was going to be their function to perform all manner of service connected with the Tabernacle, they would be counted separately and would form a separate camp. (2) A Midrashic approach based on Bamidbar Rabbah 1,12: The words ואתה הפקד את הלוים teach that anyone who demonstrates a certain degree of readiness to sacrifice his personal interests in favor of Divine interests, thereby coming closer to God, will be rewarded by being brought a great deal closer at God's initiative. At the time when Moses had asked for volunteers to carry out the death sentence on the people who had actively engaged in worship of the golden calf, the members of the tribe of Levi had responded to his call, endangering their own lives in the process (Exodus 32,26-28). In appreciation of the Levites’ loyalty and dedication during the episode of the golden calf God now rewards them by assigning to them sacred duties. The reason the Torah uses the term משכן העדות, “Tabernacle of Testimony,” here is because the tasks of the Levites included transporting the Holy Ark which contained the two Tablets of Testimony, together with all the other furnishings of the Tabernacle as well as its components.
AND ELEAZAR AND ITHAMAR MINISTERED ‘AL PNEI’ AARON THEIR FATHER - “that is, during the lifetime [of Aaron their father].” This is the language of Rashi. Now [Rashi] does not mean to say that they ministered during their father’s lifetime, for all priests of the family of Aaron may minister during their fathers’ lifetime [so why should Scripture single out Eleazar and Ithamar in this respect?] Rather, [the verse says that they were anointed during Aaron’s lifetime], because He had stated [that Aaron’s sons were] the priests that were anointed, meaning that they too were like the High Priests in that they were anointed during Aaron’s lifetime, just as he [Aaron] was anointed, a procedure which was not applicable in later generations.
But the correct interpretation is that the expression al pnei refers to the beginning [of the verse, and the order of the phrases is to be understood as if inverted, as follows]: “And Nadab and Abihu died before the Eternal ‘al pnei’ (in the presence of) Aaron their father, when they offered strange fire.” And so indeed it is stated in the Book of Chronicles: And Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children, and Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest’s office. The meaning of [the expression] before the Eternal is that they died a miraculous death which came [directly] from Him. Similarly it is stated in the case of the spies that they died by the plague before the Eternal.
How do our individual roles make us unique?
Are some of us better suited for one role or another?
What kind of hierarchy does it create when two brothers have different roles, when one is responsible for all three groups while one is only responsible for two?
In many cultures around the world, eldest sons inherit the property and position of the father—this is called patrilineal primogeniture—and the other sons must find other ways of sustaining themselves. They sometimes joined the priesthood. The dedication of sons to priestly sanctuaries/clans is not uncommon in rural peasant economies;[9] these children are assimilated into the priestly clan at the site, trained in ritual function, and enculturated in their lore. In Europe, for instance, later sons of wealthy families would try to make their fortune as soldiers or become pastors, living off the funds of the community they served.
Although Israel does not appear to have used a primogeniture based inheritance system, firstborns were favored with a double portion of inheritance. Moreover, splitting territory into small pieces to accommodate all of a person’s sons could make the family insolvent. It thus seems likely that the Israelites would have done what many societies do, namely dedicating at least one son to “the priesthood.”
This practice would have taken off during times of uncertainty and economic turmoil. Families would have adopted the practice of devoting their own sons to service at their local sanctuaries as a way to alleviate stress they faced if they could not sustain their families with their own crops or flocks.[10] Dedicating sons to the priesthood would have provided some relief for struggling families, allowing family resources to go further within the household, but also assuring that the son given over to priestly service would benefit from the security of the sanctuary, its priestly staff, and resources.[11]
Both archaeological and textual evidence in the biblical record points to frequent periods of economic strain in early Israel,[12] and the dedication of sons as “Levites” to the stable sanctuaries anchoring disparate communities became a fairly common agrarian practice. Over time, this practice became conventional such that even wealthier families would have felt the social responsibility to participate in this institution.