parshablog

posts so far for parashat Behaalotecha

2013-05-19T14:27:00.000-04:00

2012

1. Behaaloscha sources -- even further expanded.

2. YUTorah on the parasha.

3. Why the pasek after the word tamei? Midrashically, as well as from a system of trup.

4. Did Avraham call anyone 'My Master' besides Hashem? According to Meshech Chochma, he did not, and so was of the select few to be called an eved Hashem. But it is not so simple, according to Rav Yechezkel Abramsky's son. According to one opinion, Adonay at the start of Vayera is chol. Then, I weigh in with what I think is an even stronger counter-example, עַל-עַבְדְּכֶם.

2011

Behaloshcha sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
.
Impure to the bone, part ii -- Continuing a topic from last year on parshat Naso, about whether לטמי means bone or impure, and whether דאינשא should be present. This touches on pesukim in Belaalotecha as well.
.
YU Torah on parashat Behaalotecha.
.
The psik in נֹסְעִים | אֲנַחְנוּ, and whether gierim had to hoof it - Birkas Avraham darshens another pesik.
.
Does the gershayim double the lamed, of gematria 30? A derasha on a gershayim in Behaaloscha, that the doubling of the stroke implies twice, and that it is on a lamed makes for double 30. I disagree with the need, or inclination, todarshen it, and try to explain why a gershayim instead of a geresh. But to each his own. I just discuss this for the sake of completeness.
.
Two places named Chatzeros -- Rav Chaim Kanievsky considers whether there were two places named Chatzeros, such that the one at the start of Devarim, in Ever Hayarden, is not the same as the one in themasaot, which is the one mentioned in Behaaloscha, where Miriam was punished with leprosy. I consider his words, and use it as a jumping off point. Plus, the Sifrei darshens a Samaritan text!

2010

Behaaloscha sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
a
When you cause to ascend the lamps -- What is bothering Rashi? He explains בְּהַעֲלֹתְךָ in a particular way, but is inconsistent elsewhere in explaining לְהַעֲלֹת נֵר תָּמִיד. Meanwhile the derasha is not initially on Behaalotecha. I consider Gur Aryeh, and then differ, and explain my own take on the matter.a
.
Ibn Caspi and the magic trumpets -- Does Ibn Caspi have an expansive definition of the term dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam which includes falsehood in line with common misperception? I consider one possible example.a
.
Take the Levites -- should 'take' have more than null value? According to Rashi and according to Ibn Ezra, why does "take the Levites" mean anything? Can't it be a sort of preparatory verb for the purification found later in the pasuk? An answer, I think.
.
Why the warlike language when the aron traveled? Is the description of what Moshe said when the ark went out and returned really about simple travel in the wilderness? Isn't the warlike topic somewhat tangential? I suggest an answer regarding these moved pesukim.
.
How the Zohar spells matzos -- How shall we spell מצות here in Behaaloscha? The Zohar seems to indicate that it ischaser, which goes against all known sefarim as well as the masores. But I rescue the Zohar's statement.

2009

Adi"r Bamarom -- an explanation of a masoretic note on parshat Behaalotecha.
.
Behaalotecha sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
.
Oo as Oh: a reanalysis of Ibn Ezra on ובדרך, discussed last year. I present a translation of Mechokekei Yehuda, and end up agreeing that Ibn Ezra is likely reading the Rambam into the pasuk, and thus it is that he missed Pesach Rishon beshogeg, and now incurs karet if he dismisses Pesach Sheni..
Who was the Kushite woman, and how did she turn black? Relating Ibn Ezra to contemporary science.
.
Eldad and Medad's prophecy -- translated, and how it relates to the context.
.
The dot on the heh of rechokah, and how it might relate to the gender ambiguity of the word derech.
.
Should shatu have the stress on the first or the last syllable? And see the comment section for clarification.
.
Did the hand of the LORD or the spirit of God rest on Elisha? A discussion of competing nuschaot in a pasuk in Melachim, and whether we should even consider emending in favor of one.

2008

Rabbenu Bachya's position on nikkud and the ambiguity inherent within pesukim -- I cite him in full, and explain why I think Shadal in his Vikuach is mischaracterizing his position. Based on a pasuk in Behaalotecha, וְאִם-כָּכָה אַתְּ-עֹשֶׂה לִּי, where the word את is a kinnui for the Attribute of Judgment
a
"And is not on a journey" as "Or is not on a journey" -- where when Ibn Ezra says או בדרך he is making either a phonological or a logical point. Shadal faces off against Avi Ezer, and then we have a Karaite supercommentary and finally my own suggestion. It is a difficult Ibn Ezra, all in all. Perhaps I should check out other supercommentaries of Ibn Ezra this year.
.
"Their prophecy did not cease" -- Was the prophetic gift to Eldad and Medad just temporary, or permanent? I would suggest a third possibility. It means that they were not gathered.
.
Pesach Sheni, if a convert converts -- should he bring the korban pesach offering immediately, even not in its proper time? I suggest it means that converting in between Pesach Rishon and Sheni, he still brings Pesach Sheni, and this depending on whether the second chag severed from the first. But see inside for details.
.
"Miracle Grow" -- Did the shemen hamishcha have the effect of making people miraculously grow taller, or is that ridiculous. What is the true intent of the midrash that says that this was a special mark of distinction.

2007

Parsha Punning Puzzle: What feature of Behaalotecha Am I? an easy one, but I was just getting started, IIRC
a
An Important Grammatical Form -- cross-posted from Ki Tavo. וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה in Bahaaloscha shows that a singular verb can apply to multiple individuals (Miryam and Aharon) and even to people of the opposite gender (Aharon). It all follows the identity of the first person mentioned.

2006

Rashbam's Midrashic Literalism? that Moshe married the queen of Kush.
a
Why the Repetition of Isha Kushit Lakach? within the open-canon approach, it is saying, "Oh yeah, we didn't mention this earlier, but he married a Kushite woman." And what those following a closed-canon approach do.
a
Why Was Miriam, and Not Aharon, Punished? Perhaps only Miriam spoke. a grammatical analysis.
a
Roundup -- What other blogs are saying about the parsha
a
Why Couldn't the Manna Taste Like X?

And what does it mean to say that nursing mothers could not have it? I argue that it does not mean that everyone is restricted because of nursing mothers. And discuss ADDeRabbi's post on the subject.
Then, in Manna Redux, I reexamine the issue after having seen Rashi in the gemara, which sheds light on Rashi in Chumash. And add a bit to the above discussion.

2005

Parsing Moshe's Prayer

based on trup. I argue that na in kel na refa na la means different things. Thus, God, please heal now, her. Also, a keri and ketiv at play here, to parallel Aharon's earlier speech.

Who Is The Naar?

considering Yehoshua and Gershom as candidates.

"Na" Only Connotes Please

What does this phrase mean? Does it mean it can only mean this and not something else, or does it mean that in certain instances for midrashic purpose, we can read the meaning of "please" into it? I argue for the latter, and that others hold this as well. Indeed, no one ever says achila only means eating, because this is obvious. There must be some alternative, or else there is no purpose to the statement.

2004

Chovav As A Witness, or Guide?

Moshe asked Chovav to stay to be their eyes. Is this as a witness or a guide? I suggest the latter. Also, was he successful?

Who Was Chovav? Who Was Yisro? And Who Was Moshe's Father-In-Law?

Perhaps they are the same person, and perhaps not. I lot hinges on the definition of chotein moshe.

Related to the Above: Another Interesting Cognate from "Hebrew Cognates In Amharic"

in that in Amharic, the same Semitic word means both father-in-law and brother-in-law.

No More, No End, Not Gathered

Three possible meanings of וְלֹא יָסָפוּ as regards Eldad and Medad.

BeKetuvim (Eldad and Medad)

The midrashic derivation of the contents of Eldad and Medad's prophecies. And how either Eldad and Medad, or their prophecies, were recorded in the "ketuvim."

Would You Go Back To Slavery In Egypt For This?

Illustrations of the foodstuffs that the Israelites looked back fondly to.

The Manna, On the Other Hand

useful to compare to the above.

cross-listed from parshat Chukas: For What Sin Was Moshe Punished?

perhaps he was actually commanded to strike the rock, and his sin was in his initial reaction to the people's complaint.

to be continued...

May the Sotah take the bitter waters intravenously?

2013-05-17T06:21:00.001-04:00

I was in a bit of a fun mood, so I posted the following question (and subsequent answer) at Mi Yodea:

May the Sotah take the bitter waters intravenously?

In Naso, we read (Bamidbar 5:32) that the kohen blots out the curses (which include Hashem's name) in the bitter waters and then gives for the woman to drink (5:24).

What if the woman is unable to swallow the waters due to their bitterness? Could she instead take it as an intravenous injection? Or do we insist that she swallow it?

After a few hours, I posted this response:

This is actually something explicitly prohibited by one of the Aseres Hadibros, namely commandment #3.

Devarim 5:10 states לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת-שֵׁם-ה אֱלֹקֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Hashem your God in vein."

Alas, the answer was deleted as per their Purim Torah policy. It took a few hours, though, and first attracted a few answers. Poe's Law in action, I suppose. There are plenty of questions of this sort on the site, asked entirely earnestly. Right now the question still stands, as if I thought the question was really a good question.

YU Shavuos To-Go, 5773

2013-05-14T05:55:00.002-04:00

Individual Articles download

Feature Section: Leadership

Also, see Shavuot To-Go from previous years here.

Kehas and Gershon get a Vaydaber. Merari does not.

2013-05-13T06:20:00.002-04:00

Summary: Or HaChaim explains it as a special elevation to Gershon. I explain it as due to the interjection at the end of the instruction for Kehas.

Post: Here is Or HaChaim on the first pasuk of parshas Naso:

The point he makes is that there is a separate dibbur for introducing the count of Gershon. That is, we have here a count of the families of the three sons of Levi.

Kehas is in parshas Bamidbar, in Bamidbar 4:1

And Gershon is in the beginning of parshas Naso, in Bamidbar 4:21:

And the count for Merari is a bit later, in Bamidbar 4:29.

The three are obviously a set, so why do Kehas and Gershon merit a separate dibbur while Merari does not?

Or HaChaim explains as follows:

“It is necessary to say Vaydaber a second time, and it is not sufficient with what was stated Vaydaber Hashem in the preceding counting of the children of Kehas in parshas Bamidbar because it [the count of Gershon] comes to say another matter besides the count, and this is that they should lift up and elevate them over the children of Merari. And this matter is a thing in and of itself, for this ‘Nesius’ is not in the same domain as the ‘Nesius’ of the children of Kehas, who were the carriers (‘Nosei’) of the Aron. For this reason, a separate dibbur was established for him. And therefore, when he commanded the counting of the children of Merari, he said ‘the children of Merari… you shall count’ [Josh: but it does not say the word נשא like it does for the other brothers], it does not establish a dibbur by itself, for they have no ascendancy, but only a count, from that which it says Tifkod and not Tisa.”

In other words, there is a secondary meaning to the word נשא. It refers to an elevation rather than a count. And so we neatly explain why there is a special dibbur for Gershon at the same time that we explain the change in language by Merari.

I would explain the difference in a different way. The reason for the repetition of Vaydaber has nothing to do with Gershon, who was counted second, but with Kehas, who was counted first. Look at the full perek here to see the structure of the perek.

The structure is:

Vaydaber
Count Kehas
Duties of Kehas
Interjection (4: 17-20): Vaydaber: Kehas might die, Aharon and his sons should take these steps to prevent.
Vaydaber
Count Gershon also
Duties of Gershon
Count Merari
Duties of Merari

The big change is in [IV] the interjection at the very end of parshas Bamidbar.

That this interjection requires a Vaydaber should indicate to us that this is indeed an interjection, and a change of topic. If so, then naturally we need a Vaydaber (and a gam hem) to return us to the initial topic.

However, there is no such interjection at the end of Gershon. And so we can go straight to Merari, without an introductory Vaydaber.

Or HaChaim further comments as follows:

"To Moshe: And there [before, by Kehas at the end of parshas Bamidbar] it states [the Moshe] and to Aharon. This because there the command comes to Aharon in order that he perform the seder which is stated in the matter of the burden of the children of Kehas, for it is written

וְשָׂמוּ אוֹתָם אִישׁ אִישׁ עַל-עֲבֹדָתוֹ, וְאֶל-מַשָּׂאוֹ. that they not die. Therefore it stated 'and to Aharon', while there is no necessity for this for the burden of the children of Aharon."

See above for the Vaydabers for Kehas and Gershon, to see one say "El Moshe veEl Aharon" and the other say "El Moshe". This explanation is plausible.

However, note that the command of vesamu osam has its own Vaydaber, directed to Moshe and Aharon. So why for the counting part and designation of duties part alone should Aharon be included? Perhaps because otherwise the separate instruction to Aharon would not make as much sense.

I would suggest an alternate explanation, that really even the second Vaydaber was to both Moshe and Aharon. But since the function of this is to recover from the interjection, a minimal Vaydaber will suffice.

Posts so far for parshat Naso

2013-05-12T06:14:00.000-04:00

2012

1. Did Chazal know the meaning of Hebrew words? Given a Tannaitic dispute about the respective meaning of chartzan and zag, some Protestant scholar says no. Shadal says yes, and explains how something so basic can be a matter of dispute. Also, that Targum Onkelos is merely attributed to Onkelos.

2. YUTorah on Naso

3. Naso sources, 2012 edition.

4. Haftarat Naso part i -- prophecy of Shimshon's conception and birth: Considering the haftara of parashat Naso, which is the story of Shimshon's miraculous birth. I present Malbim, and use his commentary as a jumping off point. In this first part, the malach's first communication.

5. Haftaras Naso part two, about the differences in the retelling of the story of the malach.

6. And part three, about the making of the goat for the malach.

2011

Naso sources -- further expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
.
Impure to the bone? Part ii. Continuing a topic from last year on parshat Naso, about whether לטמי means bone or impure, and whether דאינשא should be present.
.
YU Torah on parashat Naso.
.
How shall we pronounce the first וּבָאוּ in parashat Naso? Is it mile'eil or mi'le-ra? I weigh in, considering the meaning of Minchas Shai.
.
An explanation for that cryptic Minchas Shai on ובאו -- If marking a telisha on the place of stress is so rare, why does Minchas Shai note its absence? This on Naso.

2010

Naso sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parasha and haftara.
a
If a man does not have a redeemer -- Why is Rashi inconsistent in his explanation of this phrase, between Naso and Behar?
a
Sotah, and Identical Twin Sisters -- A statement about identical twin sisters, one of whom is a Sotah, seems oddly out of place. It is a taus sofer, as several meforshei Rashi explain? This is quite plausible. On the other hand, I give a reason why it might well not be, at least not in its entirety.
a
Impure to the bone, or just Impure? Rashi explains Onkelos, who deviates from his usual manner and explains tamei lenefesh as tamei to the bones of a dead person. This sort of expansion is quite irregular. But maybe Rashi isn't really saying this. And even if Rashi says this, this may not be what Onkelos says, or what Onkelos means, as Shadal explains.
.
Ibn Kaspi and the (poisonous?) bitter waters -- Ibn Kaspi, perhaps, sheds light on the Ibn Ezra I discussed last year, that the kohen put poisonous bitter herbs into the water.

2009

Naso sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, and links to many meforshim on the parshah and haftarah.
.
Thanks, DovBear, for the link and discussion! Check out this post and the comment section there, all about 2008's post on The Nature of the "Bitter" Waters. What precisely in Ibn Ezra's comment make Shadal and Avi Ezer draw their conclusions about Ibn Ezra's intent?
.
As a followup to the above, in "Poisonous Sota Water?!", I carefully translate and parse Ibn Ezra and Avi Ezer, in an attempt to demonstrate exactly what Shadal saw in Ibn Ezra. Then, I relate another supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, namely Mechokekei Yehudah, and show how he says more or less the same thing -- that the kohen puts a potentially harmful agent in the water -- while disagreeing with Shadal's take on Ibn Ezra that it was always fatal and up to the kohen to decide whether to put it in.
.
Then, as an additional followup, some more takes on Ibn Ezra's "sod" of the bitter waters (or waters of bitter substances), from another Ibn Ezra supercommentator, from a Karaite, and from Torah Temimah.
.
The bitter waters operating with gender equality -- Baal Haturim's supplemental support to a midrash of it affecting both adulteress and adulterer, and whether the gematria is really the mechanism of derivation here.
.
Amen | Amen; is the pasek meaningful as the Baal Haturim takes it, or is it something almost mechanical as a result of the duplication, which was anyway the source for the midrashic conclusion?
.
Yaer Hashem as a revival of Yitzchak? The Baal Haturim connects this part of the famous priestly blessing to a midrash in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer which has Yitzchak actually die at the akeida only to be resurrected.
.
In the haftarah, questions about chronology. At what point were Shimshon's parents told about his birth? Was it during the forty year subjugation under the Philistines, or before it? And how the "missing" first pasuk might help resolve this.
a
How can you have a nazir who runs after women? Ralbag resolves this by relating the two, that this is supposed to offset and restrict Shimshon's nature.
a
Who spoke to Manoach and his wife? An angel or prophet? Ralbag interprets this as prophet, in a way that can have repercussions across Tanach.
a
How is the birth of Shimshon connected to parashat Naso? Besides the obvious nazir connection. That Manoach did not suspect his wife of adultery.

2008

The trup on umichsei hatachash

may be reversed. Trup charts and discussion to illustrate.

Ufkudav -- As Hashem Commanded Moshe

Understanding Rashi on this pasuk, which may involve getting the correct girsa of Rashi. And an analysis of Sifsei Chachamim's analysis.

Venistera, And She Is Defiled

Is this saying that she was secretly defiled? That there was a separate action of seclusion?

The meaning of "And She Was Not Seized"

Does this refer to rape? Or to her being caught in the act? If the latter, by whom? By witnesses or by her husband?

The Nature of the "Bitter" Waters

Were they merely bitter in (potential) effect? Or were they physically bitter? Or were they poisonous? And if poisonous, was this due to trickery of the kohen who made a private determination that she was guilty -- thus eliminating any Divine role in any of this? Is this similar to trickery in how the ketores saved the people in the mageifa? How will Avi Ezer try to save Ibn Ezra from this heresy? How will Shadal reject this Ibn Ezra as a matter of peshat?

The bitter waters of Sotah as a selective abortive agent for bastards

a weird theory, I grant you, but read it to see if it makes any sense

"Sitting" in Taanis, and Critiquing Homiletic Divrei Torah

In which I critique a homiletic interpretation of a gemara relating to nazir, then discuss whether it is legitimate to critique homily. Finally, I find a version of the devar Torah, attributed to the same source, which better (though not entirely) accords with the shakla veTarya of the gemara.
As a quick followup, the Seforno on the relevant pasuk in Naso.

The segol of Pera

Understanding Rashi's grammatical point that the segol in the word pera is only there because it is the construct form. Even in absolute form it would remain the same. Shadal notes a variant girsa of Rashi which has him potentially referring to the patach, but even so, Rashi is not correct. I suggest that Rashi differs as to the pattern in play, and is working off the form as it appears in Aramaic, in Targum Onkelos.

HaMearerim as Accursed, Causing Curse, or Something Else

A discussion of what Rashi means in his assessment of the word -- prickly rather than causing curse (the latter is Onkelos); then as it occurs in the Samaritan Targum and in Targum Pseudo-Yonatan, discerning.

2007

A midrash, and my expansion, on why converts are great. And I link it to Shavuot.

2006

Naso roundup from other blogs

2005

Healed at Sinai (Naso/Shavuot)

A midrash that all were healed in order to receive the Torah. We look at the derivations, then suggest a vector for the genesis and development of the midrash.

Na Only Connotes Please

cross-listed from Behaalotecha. We consider the meaning of X only connotes Y, and cite in part a midrash in Bamidbar Rabba about Shimshon.

2004

A Hair-Raising Experience

eh. I tried to make a link from a nazir's consecrated hair, burned on the altar, with the Indian hair wigs.

Count

C++ code to count the sons of Gershon.

to be continued...

Bamidbar: Daas Soferim and random sparked thoughts

2013-05-10T09:35:00.002-04:00

For parashat Bamidbar, let us focus on a few things from Daas Soferim, by Rav Chaim Dov Rabinowitz (1909-2001). You can read about Rabbi Rabinowitz on Wikipedia or at Dei'ah veDibur.

I've never learned through Daas Soferim, but here is how Wikipedia characterizes the work:

Rabinowitz's magnus opum (Daat Sofrim), a commentary on all of the Hebrew Bible. There are several distinguishing features to this work. The first is his courageous attempt to de-emphasize the negative aspects of ancient Jewish life that appear in the Bible. R' Rabinowitz in his role of "Defender of Israel" emphasizes that seen within the correct context, and with a proper understanding of the historical background, the negative stories are scarcely as bad as they appear. (See for example his explanation defining the differences between the story of the levite concubine at Giveah and the story of Sodom)

A second interesting feature are his (possibly the only Haredi) attempts to resolve some of the issues raised by Biblical criticism. Thus he identifies the second part of the book of Isaiah as possibly being written by a different author based on an Oral tradition from Isaiah.

Let us hook at a few of his comments on parshas Bamidbar. Of course, this won't really give us enough of a sense of the work, first because it is a small sample and second because of selection bias, in that I am choosing those bits that I find most interesting. That reflects more upon me than upon him.

Also, in terms of my interspersed comments, these are not necessarily a reflection on the underlying thought-process of Daas Soferim. My comments are more along the lines of free-association.

Reading it in Hebrew books, the form of it is as a typical Chumash, with the pesukim, Rashi, and Unkelos on each opposing page. And then, on a single page or a few pages by themselves, he writes his own commentary. This is useful because one can read the relevant pesukim and get the standard traditional commentary first.

The first comment I will highlight is regarding the keruay ha'eidah, who were appointed to perform the counting. The pasuk in the first perek of Bemidbar reads:

טז אֵלֶּה קריאי (קְרוּאֵי) הָעֵדָה, נְשִׂיאֵי מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם: רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֵם.

16 These were the elect of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers; they were the heads of the thousands of Israel.

The ketiv has a yud, as if the word were keri'ei, while the krei has keru'ei, with a shuruk. We could understand this in different ways. One is that there was no regularized spelling, such that we often find hi (meaning "her" or "she") spelled with a vav, and we see final heh even where it should make an o sound. Alternatively, this reflects a change in Biblical usage, such that the form (an adjective, but working as a passive verb, "those who were called") used to be spelled and pronounced with a chirik but now is pronounced and spelled with a vav. May of the extremely rare kal passive form discussed by Biblical Hebrew linguists? Alternatively, that there are different messages encoded in the consonantal written form and the pronounced form, e.g., callers vs. callees. See what various meforshim had to say about this issue here. For example, see Targum that they called others, rather than that they were called.

Here is what Daas Sofrim has to say about it:

"These are the קריאי of the congregation: The Torah returns and testifies that the men who were appointed for this purpose based on the say-so of God were extremely honored. They were "kri'ey ha'eida", that is, men who because of their wisdom were ready / designated at any time, so that they were ready to render advice.

There is here a krei and a ketiv. The ketiv is kri'ey and the krei is kru'ei. This is because of Zimri ben Salu, who was called here by the name Shlumiel ben Tzurishadai, for he was fit for this purpose at this time, but not based on his actions in the future. He caused the reduction of the honor of the princes of Israel."

The basis of equating Zimri with Shlumiel is that they are both designated as nasi of Shimon. See my discussion here. Thus, he handily relates the krei and ketiv switchoff with the Zimri / Shlumiel switchoff, with one explaining the other. And does it in a way consistent with Chazal, who equate the two and explain the names based on actions.

I am not sure how he is precisely defining kru'ei vs. kri'ei. Is he suggesting this is past tense vs. future tense? Or is he saying something about the name change, such that kri'ei or kru'ei means that the person is called by something other than his actual name? Or is one a lesser level of honor than the other. I admit I am left a bit confused.

Let us consider another comment by Rav Rabinowitz, on the pasuk in perek 3. First, the pesukim:

ב וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי-אַהֲרֹן, הַבְּכֹר נָדָב, וַאֲבִיהוּא, אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר.	2 And these are the names of the sons of Aaron: Nadab the first-born, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar.
ג אֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֲנִים, הַמְּשֻׁחִים--אֲשֶׁר-מִלֵּא יָדָם, לְכַהֵן.	3 These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office.
ד וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, וּבָנִים, לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם. {פ}	4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the presence of Aaron their father. {P}

How many sons did Aharon have? Only four? Consider the explosive growth of bnei Yisrael, moving in a short 210 years from seventy souls to six hundred thousand males of an age fit to head a household. Chazal said that this was because the Israelite women had six children in each birth. So why are there only four?

If I may, I will advance a position, only to provide contrast to Daas Soferim. (Though I don't know that he was reacting to this possibility.)

We can say that Aharon really had more than four sons. These other sons came along with the beit av of the other brothers for the sake of nachala. Compare to Yaakov's blessing of Ephraim and Menasheh, that these two are to be reckoned as his own sons, and any future children shall be accrued to Ephraim and Menashe.

If so, we can read pasuk 3 as stating that the four mentioned sons in pasuk 2 are specifically those sons הַמְּשֻׁחִים--אֲשֶׁר-מִלֵּא יָדָם, לְכַהֵן. But there were others. Otherwise, there is apparent repetition for no purpose. Unless it is to relate the famous personages in the genealogy to Biblical events and to point out the importance of this or that figure, which does seem to be a common approach.

Separate from this, note that the Leviim were not included in the count. The Torah explains that they are counted separately. But the overall count of the tribe of Levi is twenty-two thousand, which is much less than other tribes. How are we to account for this?

Here is what Daas Soferim has to say:

"2. And these are the names, etc.: Aharon only had four sons. All the families of the Leviim were small. Similar to this was the family of Yitzchak [with only two sons], and even the house of Yaakov grew only because of the actions of Lavan [such that he married two wives] and the barrenness of Rachel [such that he also took Rachel and Leah's maidservants in order to have more children]. In the eminent families, they only married a single woman, and it is possible that they only married at not-a-young age because of their involvement in Torah, just as we find by Yitzchak and Yaakov. And so it appears that Hashem's blessing of the fruit of the womb has hidden rules, which drive the precise barrenness and fruitfulness. This is the portion of the select people in all generation, and see later on in 39 in the count of the Leviim."

These are good words of comfort to those who have fertility problems.

He also addresses the seeming repetition from pasuk 2 to pasuk 3, as follows:

"3. אֵלֶּה, שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, הַכֹּהֲנִים, etc.: The first four words in this pasuk are similar to the first words in the previous pasuk. The Torah does not spare words here, wherever there is in them to establish the idea with greater clarity the lineage of the families of the Kohanim, who served in the Mikdash of Hashem for all generations. "אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת" [with eileh rather than with a vav, that is, ve'eileh]-- the intent is to restrict and 'invalidate' all those who preceded, including Moshe and his descendants, that they not be anointed to serve as kohanim."

Note that pasuk 1 in this perek mentioned the generations of Moshe and Aharon, and in fact we never see descendants of Moshe listed later:

א וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן, וּמֹשֶׁה: בְּיוֹם, דִּבֶּר ה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה--בְּהַר סִינָי.

1 Now these are the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day that the LORD spoke with Moses in mount Sinai.

And Rashi (/Chazal) often make a distinction between eileh and ve'eileh, and the first pasuk has the inclusive ve'eileh while this has the exclusive eileh. There is also the assumption which guides much of midrash that the Torah does not generally waste words. It is therefore a 'big deal' when the Torah repeats the story with Eliezer (because of Hashem's great love for the avos) or uses extra words to choose clean language ("that which is not tahor' rather than 'that which is tamei'). Indeed, if extra words are always just dibra Torah kilshon benei Adam, then we could not deduce anything from those extra words.

If I may propose another explanation for this "needless" repetition. The Torah was written in 'megillot', and then organized into a single unit at the end. And it quotes extra-Biblical material, such as contemporary poems (see Cheshbon, or Kayin). I suspect that genealogical scrolls existed separate from the Torah material, and this is a quote. The larger original scroll recorded the full genealogy of Moshe and Aharon, in like manner to what we find in I Divrei Hayamim 5, but with Moshe included. And it did not see fit to quote the portion about Moshe's descendants. And pasuk 3, besides being in the original source, discussing the role of the specific named people. And pasuk 4, in discussing who had children, is critical for establishing the genealogical lines.

Note that the statement that they had no children:

ד וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא לִפְנֵי ה בְּהַקְרִבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, וּבָנִים, לֹא-הָיוּ לָהֶם; וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, עַל-פְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן אֲבִיהֶם. {פ}

4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the presence of Aaron their father. {P}

is taken by a midrash as an explanation of their "hidden" true sin. E.g. that they refused to marry, because they were better than any candidates. On a peshat level, we are not being told their sin. The purpose of mentioning it has entirely to do with establishing genealogy.