The ones that make you tilt your head and ask, "Wait, what?
We're talking about the redemption of the firstborn. (Numbers 3:46) tells us about redeeming the 273 firstborn Israelites who were "over and above the number of Levites." Okay, simple enough. But then our Rabbis jump in, asking: if that’s the case, weren’t there actually more Levites than firstborn? The tribe of Levi, if you count up all the families—Gershon, Kehat, Merari, and Moses—numbered 22,300. The firstborn? 22,273. That does mean there were 27 more Levites than firstborn. So why the verse about the firstborn being more than the Levites?
The text explains that among those 22,300 Levites, 300 of them were also firstborn! And here’s the key: a firstborn can't redeem another firstborn. According to Bamidbar Rabbah, once you remove those 300 firstborn Levites from the equation, then yes, the firstborn Israelites outnumbered the remaining Levites by 273.
Now, this is where the story gets really interesting. This numerical puzzle caught the attention of Agentus, a Roman general, who challenged Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakai, a leading Jewish sage. Agentus basically accused Moses of either being a thief or just plain bad at math! He argued, if the Levites were supposed to redeem the firstborn, and there were those extra 300 Levites, why didn’t they redeem the extra 273 firstborn? And why were those 273 families made to pay five shekels each? Why was the number of Levites then reduced? Was Moses, heaven forbid, skimming off the top for his brother Aaron?
Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakai, never one to back down from a good theological debate, had a brilliant response. "He was not a thief, and he knew how to calculate." The sage explained that among the 22,300 Levites, 300 were themselves firstborn. And, as we said, a firstborn cannot redeem another firstborn. Hence, those 300 were "stolen" from the count because they were firstborn.
Agentus, apparently satisfied with this explanation, immediately left.
But what's the takeaway here? It's not just about the numbers. It's about the depth and complexity of the Torah. It is an invitation to dig deeper, to wrestle with apparent contradictions, and to find the hidden layers of meaning. It shows us that even seemingly simple commandments can hold profound insights into Jewish law and tradition. The text emphasizes that one needs to know how to expound, that is, to bring the wisdom to light.
And maybe, just maybe, it's a reminder that even a Roman general could learn a thing or two from a wise rabbi.
“And for the redemptions of the two hundred and seventy-three of the firstborn of the children of Israel, that are over and above the number of Levites” (Numbers 3:46). “And for the redemptions of the [two hundred and seventy-] three” – our Rabbis said: Were the firstborn more numerous than the Levites, that it says: “That are over and above the number of Levites”? But based on the tally, the Levites were more numerous than the firstborn, as you find that the tribe of Levi, in the detailed account, was twenty-two thousand three hundred, because they were four families: Gershon, Kehat, Merari, and Moses. You read each and every family individually and calculate it, and indeed, the four of them total twenty-two thousand three hundred. The firstborn, you find twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three. Consequently, the Levites were more numerous than the firstborn by twenty-seven. But it says regarding the firstborn: “That are over and above the number of Levites.” Rather, because there were twenty-two thousand firstborn and two hundred and seventy-three, all of them firstborn. But among the Levites there were three hundred firstborn. That is why in their detailed account they totaled twenty-two thousand three hundred, while in the general account, twenty-two thousand and no more. You find that in the tally, the firstborn were not more numerous than the Levites, but with regard to the firstborn,11In the context of the commandment to redeem the firstborns with the Levites there were more firstborns. they were more numerous than the Levites were. Remove the firstborn from them, as a firstborn does not redeem a firstborn, and they were three hundred firstborns. The result was that the firstborn of Israel were more numerous than the Levites by two hundred and seventy-three. This is the question that Agentus, the Roman general, asked Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakai. He said to him: ‘Moses your master was either a thief or he did not know how to calculate.’ He said to him: ‘Why?’ Agentus said to him: ‘Because there were twenty-two thousand firstborn and another two hundred and seventy-three, and the Omnipresent commanded that the Levites redeem the firstborn. Place twenty-two thousand Levites opposite twenty-two thousand firstborn. Moreover, among the Levites, three hundred over and above twenty-two thousand, as it is calculated in the first tally in the detailed account. Why did those three hundred excess Levites not redeem those two hundred and seventy-three firstborn that were in excess of twenty-two thousand firstborn? We find that for those two hundred and seventy-three they gave five shekels each. Moreover, why, when it ultimately provided a general account of the Levites, why did it subtract three hundred from the initial tally? Did he not steal them from the tally only so those two hundred and seventy-three firstborn would give five shekels each to Aaron his brother? Or perhaps, he does not know how to calculate.’ Rabban Yoḥanan said: ‘He was not a thief, and he knew how to calculate, but there is one matter that he whispered to me to say to you.’ He said to him: ‘Say it.’ Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakai said to him: ‘You know how to read, but you do not know how to expound.’ [And] he said: ‘Those twenty-two thousand Levites redeem the twenty-two thousand firstborn. Another three hundred remained among the Levites; among the firstborn, another two hundred and seventy-three. Those three hundred among the Levites were firstborn, and a firstborn does not redeem a firstborn. That is why, after he counted them, he “stole” them, because they were firstborn.’ Immediately, he left him.
