Bearing this in mind, we return to our pasuk, which mentions that each shekel comprises twenty gera, and can discern thereby how the redemption money was apportioned between Aharon and his sons. Each of the two hundred and seventy three “extra” firstborn gave five shekalim, totaling one thousand three hundred and sixty five (1,365) shekalim. Seeing as Aharon had two remaining sons, Elazar and Itamar, if the redemption money was to be apportioned equally among all three, there would be no need to break up any shekalim, since that amount is exactly divisible by three (1,365/3 = 455); as such, there would be not need to state how many gera make up the shekel! Rather, since the amount was to be divided by four, with half going to Aharon and the remaining two quarters to each of his sons, it was necessary to mention the sub-denominations of a shekel, since 1,365 divided by four equals 341 plus one quarter, i.e. five gera!
Down To The Letter
Taking the discussion one stage further, the Meshech Chochmah notes that our pasuk will now serve as the basis for an additional halachah with regards to redeeming the firstborn. The Gemara (Bechoros 51b) states that if one divided the redemption money for his firstborn son between a number of kohanim, it is valid. The Gemara does not provide a source for this ruling, however, the Meshech Chochmah explains that it emerges from our pasuk. Since the redemption money for the two hundred and seventy-three kohanim was divided four ways between Aharon and his sons, it emerges that there was one Kohen whose five shekalim did not all go to the same Kohen, but was divided among them.
Indeed, this idea is alluded to in the final pasuk of our perek (pasuk 51), which reads:
Moshe gave the money of the redemptions to Aharon and his sons according to the word of Hashem.
We not that the word for “redemptions” is spelled without a vav in the middle. As a rule, whenever a word is written “chaser” (with a letter missing), it indicates a lack of completion. In our case, the missing letter alludes to the fact that the redemption money of the final firstborn was not given in its entirety to any one Kohen, but was divided among them. This “lack of completion” within that final amount is reflected in the incomplete spelling of the word.
And so, as Meshech Chochmah demonstrates, the understanding of our pasuk arrived at by the exposition of Chazal (drash) is also borne out by a close analysis of the pasuk itself, paying attention to a phrase within the pasuk and setting it against all the other occasions where it is – and is not – mentioned in the Torah (pshat), and ultimately alluded to in the anomalous spelling of one of the key relevant words (remez).
