Behaalotecha: Age Matters?

Governments often assign arbitrary ages to rights and obligations. Consuming alcoholic beverages, driving motor vehicles, and voting are some of legally age-restricted activities which permission can vary based upon locale.

For those activities indicated above, there is no age set in stone; rather, different jurisdictions apply different ages to different acts. Simply put, in some circumstances, a few feet of geography in one direction can determine whether an eighteen-year-old can legally crack open an ice-cold beer or stuff a ballot box.

The Torah Portion Behaalotecha includes a Hebrew Bible moment of age assignment perplexity. Is it possible make sense of the enigmatic starting age for Levites’ mandatory service? And, did King David’s further age revision help or hurt confound any effort to make sense of it?

An examination of the Torah Portion and the Book of Chronicles are indicated to address these questions. In doing so, an age old political problem will also be revealed.

The Behaalotecha Conundrum

Behaalotecha evidences that the Hebrew Bible is not exempt from befuddling age-imposed rules. In the portion, an unusual age- twenty-five- is designated for Levite army service commencement. [Note: While some English translations indicate it is service, the use of army is based upon Friedman’s Commentary on the Torah translation.]

The Levite army service was for intended for the Tent of Meeting. During the King David’s reign, however- with the Tent of Meeting’s Jerusalem relocation- the starting age for service was changed to twenty years. See 1 Chronicles 23: 24-27.

Is any sense to this particular age restriction for the Levites?”

To address this question, an examination of the Levites’ role in Israelite society is necessary.

The Levite’s Societal Role

In the Torah Portion Behaalotecha, the Levites’ responsibilities within Israelite Society continue to be defined. As history unfolds through scripture, the Levites will play a significant role in the revitalization of Judea post-exile. See Nehemiah 8. In essence, their tasks, assignments, and dedication helped preserve and retain the Israelite cult and the meaning of scripture.

Behaalotecha shows the seriousness of the Levite charge.

In the portion, the Lord takes the Levite Tribe as his own possession. The Lord defines their role; the Levites are set apart from the other Tribes of the Children of Israel. The Lord indicated that “[a]nd you shall distinguish the Levites from among the Children of Israel, and the Levites shall be mine. And after that the Levites shall come to work in the Tent of Meeting.” Numbers 8:14-15.

The Lord goes further in his reasoning: “Because they are given, given, to me from the Children of Israel.” Numbers 8:16.

So, unlike the other Tribes for which their army-aged men could reside on their tribal territories, the Levites, who were arguably land-less, were to be assigned to where the Tent of Meeting happened to be located. For some period of time, it would reside with the Tabernacle at Shiloh.

In essence, the Levites were truly separated from the other tribes due to their designated location.

The Age of Service

“And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “This is what the Levites have: from twenty-five years old and up each shall come to do army service by the work of the Tent of Meeting; and from fifty years old he shall go back from army service and shall not work anymore; and he shall minister with his brothers in the Tent of Meeting to keep the charge, but he shall not do work. You shall do thus to the Levites regarding their charge.” Numbers 8:23-26. [emphasis added]

Eventually, during the Israelite Monarchy, the rule changed. According to the First Book of Chronicles, King David lowered the Levite service age requirement.

In David’s time, since the Tabernacle was in Jerusalem and no longer needed to be moved, the Levites duties changed. This was King David’s rationale applied for lower the requirement from twenty-years of age to twenty. See 1 Chronicles 23:24. The passage also details the Levite’s numerous responsibilities. See 1 Chronicles 23:28.

Biology

Human beings have many biological milestones. They are often correlated to age. This correlation is not exacting; puberty’s starting and stopping has a wide range; further, it differs between the sexes. This is likely the reason that eighteen is considered a milestone; to some degree, it marks the end of puberty.

Beyond puberty, there is also Human Brain development which plays a role. Science suggests that the brain does not mature until the mid-twenties; recent studies have suggested that it might take longer- the thirties.

Irrespective of these facts, each individual’s reaching these biological milestones is an individual event not tied into a specific birthday celebration; a calendared date. Thus, when biology is considered for laws, the results are not exacting.

With respect to the Levites, maturity may have played a role with respect to the initial age determination. Alternatively, perhaps it was meant to allow an individual to start a family before starting service. Arguably, a limitation at the age of twenty appears to be considering the puberty’s completion versus brain maturity.

Given this enigma, understanding what changed with respect to the Tent of Meeting is important to determining the reasoning behind the age requirement.

What Changed?

Unlike the Torah’s commandment, King David’s age change offered a reason; a revision in tasks. The Tabernacle’s permanent Jerusalem location reduced labor needs for transportation. This presents as a quandary as to Behaalotecha’s assignment of twenty-five years of age versus the revised twenty years; less labor implies less need for laborers.

The Commentator Rashi explains that David made these changes in preparation of Solomon taking the throne. David perhaps acted to deflect any blame or resentment that could be directed towards the future King- Solomon- for the rule change. One must assume- for the Levites- having to start their service five years earlier was unpopular.

Was there something else going on? Was the Levite population insufficient to handle the responsibilities? In essence, did short-staffing require additional workers? Or, was there a need to start Levites off earlier in the service for training purposes? Or, did the Jerusalem location, in reality, create more work for the Levites?

In sum, it doesn’t make sense.

The Takeaways?

From time to time, seemingly arbitrary ages are assigned for either restrictions or the entitlement to rights. Too often, the public is deprived of discourse in the decision-making process; rationales that impact the public are opaque.

The three apparent biological reasons for age restrictions involve puberty, puberty’s completion, and the Human Brain’s full maturation. Likewise, age-related legislation is also concerned with matters of cognitive decline, i.e. the elderly’s driver’s licenses.

In this instance, appreciating these facts perhaps exposes that there may have been an alternative agenda in King David’s moving the requirement.

Conclusion

Legal age restrictions are often puzzling. They can appear either arbitrary or lacking rationale. Even if revisited, satisfactory answers are not guaranteed.

In the Levites’ case, as reported in Chronicles, the results are puzzling; King David’s age restriction modification’s rationale raises eyebrows.

While a reason for the age modification was offered, the explanation is unsatisfactory. The perplexing nature of it suggests of an unspoken agenda; was there something occurring at the time of the Davidic Monarchy that was not meant for public consumption? Perhaps King David making an unpopular decision to provide cover for the future King Solomon.

This Hebrew Bible example plays out in modern politics. Often, governments engage in actions without complete public disclosure. While these actions without full disclosure are done to prevent displaying weakness, failure or concern, they also can create an atmosphere of distrusting government.

Sometimes, however, the public could help remedy problems when faced with an ugly truth. For example, in It’s a Wonderful Life, the movie tells of a George Bailey’s financial dilemma. While he considered his financial loss personally, he did that appreciate that his community would turn out to be more than happy to step up and assist him financially in his time of need.

Be well!!

Please like, follow, comment or share