I find פרשת במדבר (Numbers 1:1–4:20) interesting for a variety of reasons: it begins with a census, which naturally appeals to a social scientist like me; it describes in detail the organization of the camp that the Jews kept in the wilderness, which may explain a lot if, as Emile Durkheim argued in Primitive Classification, the organization of things follows from the form of social organization (e.g., Australian aborigines conceived space as a circle because their camps had a circular form); and finally, the theme of usurpation of the firstborn reappears in this portion. (That would fascinate a younger brother like me, wouldn't it?)
In the Torah there is a repeated pattern of the firstborn getting usurped: most notably, Isaac is favored over Ishmael, and Jacob tricks Esau out of his birthright. In במדבר, the pattern reappears. The first-born of every Jewish family was supposed to represent the family in religious service (Exodus 13:2, Exodus 24:5), but the firstborn disqualified themselves by participating in the Golden Calf incident, while the Levites remained loyal to השם (Exodus 32:26). Consequently, in במדבר, the Levites are given the role of serving in the משכן (Numbers 1:50), replacing the firstborn (Numbers 3:12).
What are we to make of this pattern? Of course, the traditional Christian interpretation, going back to Paul (Galatians 4:21–31), is that these episodes foreshadowed the supersession of the Jewish people by the Church. But how else might it be interpreted? To use a bit of sociological jargon, it seems to me that it represents a rejection of a social order based on ascription (i.e., where social position is determined by birth) in favor of a social order based on achievement. In במדבר, this seems clear enough: the Levites, through their actions, proved themselves to be more deserving of the honor and responsibilities bestowed upon them. But what about Ishmael and Esau? How is the loss of their favored position determined by their actions and/or the actions of their rivals? In the Torah it isn't altogether clear, but the rabbis in their midrashim take pains to establish that both Ishmael and Esau were bad people. Ishmael is said to have dishonored women, worshiped idols, and tried to kill Isaac, which is why Sarah insisted on his banishment. Similarly, Esau was said to have committed idolatry, adultery, and bloodshed (not to mention that after the the Bar Kokhba revolt Esau was identified with Rome). Granted, these are later rabbinical interpretations--some might even say rationalizations--of the stories, but they are very much in keeping with the notion that social order--even a divinely ordained one--ought to be based on merit rather than birth. La carrière ouverte aux talents, avant la lettre.
