Parshat Naso begins by completing (with benei Gershon and benei Merari) the census of leviim qualified to transport and serve the mishkan (ages 30-50) that began with the counting of benei Kehat in the previous parshah. Numerous mefarshim (Rash, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni etc.) note the Torah's curious emphasis of "gam heim" in its formulation of this obligation - "naso et rosh benei gershon gam heim le-beit avotam le-mishpechotam". They conclude that the Torah intended to equate or at least compare this count with the previous enumeration of benei Kehat. Most, however, do not explain why it was necessary to emphasize or justify this comparison? Chizkuni (4:22) suggests that the Torah wanted to underscore that notwithstanding the superior function of benei Kehat, the bearers of the elite, sanctified components of the mishkan - the aron, shulchan, mizbeach, menorah, kelei sharet etc. - it was also important to recognize the special stature of benei Gershon, the oldest of benei Levi, by counting them second, prior to benei Merari.
This perspective may be reinforced and perhaps even extended by noting, as did other mefarshim, the Torah's special formulation of this census. The Torah commands the count of benei Gershon, as it did the numbering of benei Kehat, by invoking the expression "naso et rosh", implying an elite leadership function. This phrase is notably absent with respect to the census of benei Merari (4:29-"Benei Merari le-mishpechotam, le-beit avotam tikfkod otam"). While Ibn Ezra proposes that the Torah intended this prominent usage for both benei Gershon and benei Merari, most mefarshim (and see also Midrash Rabbah 6:4 and Or ha-Chayim) accentuate the discrepancy that equates the first two groups and distinguishes them from benei Merari. On this basis, one might propose that "gam heim" refers precisely to the "nesiat rosh" stature that is shared by both benei Kehat and benei Gershon, albeit anchored in diverse motifs.
It is noteworthy that while with respect to the count of functioning leviim (age 30-50), benei Kehat are counted first, it is the male progeny of the bechor, Gershon (Bamidbar 3:14-21), that are given priority in the broader census of benei Levi! Indeed, this apparent discrepancy is invoked by some mefarshim (Daat Zekenim Baalei ha-Tosfot, Rosh) to explain the "gam heim" reference. They posit that "gam heim" reiterates and reaffirms the special bechor status of benei Gershon, as reflected in the broader census, even in the context that accentuates a different leadership criteria, the responsibility for devarim she-bekedushah.
We encounter a parallel phenomenon with respect to the respective roles of Moshe and Aharon. While typically the Torah emphasizes the supreme leadership role of Moshe Rabbeinu, there are numerous times when the Torah equates Aharon's role with Moshe's, and occasionally even projects Aharon in a leading role. Indeed, Aharon, the older brother and the embodiment of keter kehunah, is initially given priority in the census of shevet Levi (3:1), both Moshe and Aharon participate in the counting of benei Kehat (4:1,17), and only Moshe is explicitly linked to the enumeration of benei Gershon (4:21. See, also, Daat Zekenim 4:37, Or ha-Chayim 4:21)! The Torah and Chazal are replete with evidence that Moshe and Aharon reflected and manifested diverse leadership paradigms. Evidently, these diverse leadership criteria qualified them respectively for leadership of different phases of the census.
The Keli Yakar (4:22) speculates why the family of the bechor, benei Gershon, were not simply chosen for the more elite function of bearing the aron and other sanctified keilim etc., thereby eliminating any hierarchal ambiguity, dispelling the confusion of overlapping, diverse leadership paradigms. He posits that the Torah intentionally disentangled responsibility for the aron that symbolized the keter Torah from the bechorah in order to project that Torah commitment is a supreme and independent value, one that is accessible to all groups. However, according to this perspective, the need to reassert the significance of the bechorah motif in this context (nesiat rosh, "gam heim") apparently illustrates the existence and importance of overlapping concepts of sanctity and leadership, even when there is a clear hierarchy.
It is significant that the midrash elaborates the hierarchy of stature, and enumerates the various overlapping paradigms of leadership and attainment and their interaction specifically in this context. Even as the Midrash Rabbah (6:1,2) notes that Torah credentials outweigh (citing Mishlei 3:15, "yekarah hi bifnim ve-kol chafazekha lo yishvu bah") other qualifications - the bechorah, malchut, kehunah gedolah and other elite paradigms - it reflects the importance of each of these diverse models and, by implication, the very importance of diffuse, multiple models of sanctity and leadership.
This principle is implicit in Jewish law; it is reflected by the fact that different situations and categories in halachic life require different institutional and leadership responses. Jewish life is diverse, comprehensive, and wide-ranging. It is enhanced by the specialization implicit in keter kehunah, keter malchut, and other categorical distinctions. While Moshe Rabbeinu is the ultimate embodiment of leadership, this ideal does not exclude a prominent and in some contexts and issues a dominant role for Aharon HaKohein. The subtle yet forceful articulation of "gam heim", equating the "nesiat rosh" stature of benei Kehat and benei Gershon despite and because of their different foundations, conveys and reaffirms the Torah's rich doctrine of mutually enhancing, overlapping leadership paradigms.