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. Think about that for a moment. 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, right? 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 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.