Jewish tradition grapples with this very question, particularly when we look at the roles of Aaron and David, and their descendants. Which brings up an interesting comparison: who had the better deal?
According to the Sifrei Bamidbar, a collection of legal interpretations on the Book of Numbers, the covenant forged with Aaron, the first high priest, was actually greater than the one with David, the king. Kingship, with all its power and glory, taking a backseat to…priesthood? What's the reasoning?
Well, Aaron's descendants, the Kohanim (priests), inherited their role regardless of their personal righteousness. Good or bad, a descendant of Aaron was a priest. But David's line? Their kingship was conditional. As (Psalm 132:12) states, "If your children will keep My covenant… they will sit on the throne for you." Big difference. A priest is a priest, no matter what; a king has to earn his throne, generation after generation.
But the story doesn't stop with the priests. The Sifrei Bamidbar draws a parallel between the priesthood and the Levites, the tribe of Levi. Just as the priests had their special role, so too did the Levites, who served in the Temple. The Torah tells us in (Numbers 18:21), "It is a covenant of salt… and to the sons of Levi." The "covenant of salt" (b’rit melach) is an everlasting covenant, an unbreakable promise. The text emphasizes that the Levites’ role was established with joy, just like the priesthood. Remember the word "behold" (hinneh) in Hebrew often suggests joy, as we see in (Exodus 5:14).
Now, how were the Levites compensated? They received tithes – a tenth of the produce – from the Israelites. But there’s a fascinating discussion about the nature of this exchange. Rabbi Yoshiyah suggests that these tithes were essentially purchased by God and given to the Levites in exchange for their service in the Tent of Meeting (Ohel Mo’ed). Rabbi Yonathan, however, argues that the land itself acquired the tithes and gifted them to the Levites, referencing (Leviticus 27:30). Either way, the Levites received their due.
The Sifrei Bamidbar goes on to clarify the Levites' responsibilities. They had to serve. It wasn't optional. The text stresses, "And the Levite shall serve – he," emphasizing the obligatory nature of their role. Even during shemitah (sabbatical) and yovel (jubilee) years, when tithing didn’t occur, the Levites were still expected to serve. According to Rabbi Nathan, this was so important that if there was no Levite available, a Kohen (a priest) couldn't just step in and take over. The roles were distinct and non-interchangeable.
There's also a fascinating point about responsibility. If the Levites failed to properly guard the Temple grounds and someone entered improperly, they, the Levites, bore the sin, not the Israelites. Interestingly, the priests would bear the sin if they entered where they shouldn't. This subtle distinction highlights the layered responsibilities within the Temple system.
One last point: the Levites didn't receive a portion of land like the other tribes. The Sifrei Bamidbar emphasizes this point, explaining that while the initial division of land might suggest otherwise, the Levites were explicitly excluded. This lack of land ownership was permanent, extending even to conquered territories. The text even suggests this was something the courts had to enforce.
So, what does it all mean? It seems the tradition is trying to tell us something profound about the nature of covenant, responsibility, and the enduring power of service. While kingship might seem outwardly more glamorous, the priesthood and the Levitical service, with their inherent obligations and lasting covenants, held a unique and vital place in the spiritual life of Israel. And perhaps, just perhaps, a greater covenant, one that transcended even the allure of a throne.
Greater is the covenant forged with Aaron than that forged with David. Aaron merited (priesthood) for his sons — whether righteous or wicked, and David merited (kingdom only) for the righteous, but not for the wicked, viz. (Psalms 132:12) "If your children will keep My covenant … (they will sit on the throne for you.") (Bamidbar 18:19) "It is a covenant of salt … (21) and to the sons of Levi." Scripture hereby apprises us that just as the covenant is forged with the priesthood, so, is it forged with the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated at Mount Sinai, so, that of the Levites. And just as the mitzvah of the priesthood was stated with joy, so, that of the Levites, as it is written "and to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given, etc." "Behold" connotes joy, as in (Shemot 5:14) "And, behold, he goes out to meet you, and when he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "in exchange for their service": All the mitzvoth of the priesthood (i.e., the twenty-four priestly gifts) were acquired by the L-rd and given to the Cohanim; and these (the mitzvoth of the Levites), "in exchange for their services of the tent of meeting." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: This, too, was acquired by the land and given to the Levites, as it is written (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land … is the L-rd's; it is holy to the L-rd." "And to the sons of Levi I have given all the tithe of Israel as an inheritance": Just as an inheritance does not change from its place, so, first tithe, (which is given to the Levite), does not change from its place, (unlike second tithe, which in the third and sixth years converts to poor-tithe.) "in exchange for the service which they perform": If he serves, he takes (the tithe); if not, he does not. (Ibid. 22) "And the children of Israel shall no more draw near": the exhortation. "to bear sin, to die": the punishment (at the hands of Heaven.). (Ibid. 23) "And the Levite shall serve — he": Why is this written? From "in exchange for their service" I might understand, if he wishes, he serves, and if he does not wish, he does not serve; it is, therefore, written "And the Levite shall serve — he" — perforce. Variantly: Why is this written? From "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel (in exchange for their service, etc.") This tells me only (that they must serve) only in the years that the tithes obtain. Whence do I derive (that they must also serve) on shemitoth and yovloth, (when the tithes do not obtain)? From "And the Levite shall serve — he" (in any event). R. Nathan says: If no Levite were there, I might think that a Cohein may serve. And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If in a place (i.e., the priestly service), where Levites are not kasher, Cohanim are kasher, then, in a place (i.e., the Levitical service), where Levites are kasher, how much more so should Cohanim be kasher! It is, therefore, written "And the Levite shall serve — he." "and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of not guarding property)": And others (the Israelites, who, [being unguarded, enter the sanctuary]) will not bear their (the Levites') sin. This is to say that Israelites do not bear the sin of the Levites, but the Cohanim, (who enter where they should not), do bear their (the Levites') sin. It is, therefore, written "and they (the Levites) will bear their sin (of improper guarding)," and not the Israelites or the Cohanim (who, as a result, enter where they should not.) "a statute forever for your generations": It obtains for all succeeding generations. And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance": Why is this written? For, since it is written (Ibid. 26:53) "To these shall the land be apportioned," I would think that the Levites, too, are included; it is, therefore, written "And in the midst of the children of Israel, they shall not inherit an inheritance." (Ibid. 24) "For the tithe of the children of Israel which they set apart for the L-rd as terumah": Scripture refers to it as terumah until he separates terumath ma'aser from it, whereby it teaches that if he wishes to make it terumah for other (untithed) produce, he may do so. "have I given to the Levites as an inheritance": Why is this written? Because it is written "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe in Israel in exchange for the service, etc.", I would think (that first-tithe is given to the Levites) only when the Temple, (in which service is performed), exists. Whence do I derive (that it is given) even when the Temple does not exist? From "as an inheritance." Just as "inheritance" obtains whether or not the Temple exists, so, first-tithe. "Therefore, I have said to them that in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance": Why is this written? Is it not already written (23) "And in the midst of the children of Israel they shall not inherit an inheritance"? I might think that this applies only at the time of the apportionment of the land; but after the apportionment each tribe sets aside from its portion (a parcel of land for Levi). It is, therefore, written "Therefore, I have said, etc." Variantly: "Therefore, I have said": Why is this written? Because it is written (Devarim 7:1) "And He will cast out many nations from before you, the Chitti, the Girgashi, etc.", but Keini, Kenizi, and Kadmoni are not mentioned, (so that we might think that when they are conquered, Levi can have inheritance in their land); it is, therefore, written "Therefore, I have said, etc." — forever (are they not to have inheritance). Variantly: (It is written) to exhort beth-din to this end (of their not receiving inheritance).
