A Lack of Respect
in So Many Ways
R. Yaakov
Bieler
Parashat
BaMidbar, 5766
The tragedy of the deaths of
Aharon’s two oldest sons, Nadav and Avihu, appears to be intended by the Tora to
make a lasting impression upon the Jewish people in light of the event and its
incriminating details being mentioned well beyond the first account of the
incident in Parshat Shmini.
VaYikra
10:1-2
And the sons of Aharon, Nadav and
Avihu, each took his firepan, and they put in them fire/a glowing coal, and they
placed upon it incense, and they offered before HaShem a strange/uncalled-for
fire that He had not Commanded them (to bring).
And a fire went out from before
HaShem and it consumed them and they died before
HaShem.
Ibid.
16:1
And HaShem Spoke to Moshe after
the deaths of the two sons of Aharon when they approached before Hashem and
they died.
BaMidbar
3:4
And Nadav and Avihu died before
HaShem when they offered up a strange fire before HaShem in the
desert of
Sinai, and they did not have
children (?),[1]
and Elazar and Itamar were made Kohanim before Aharon their father.
I Divrai HaYamim
24:2
And Nadav and Avihu died before
their father, and they did not have children (?) and Elazar
and Itamar were made Kohanim.
Even if the Written Tradition
wished to note Aharon’s loss and these two men’s premature deaths, it is less
clear why the text has to reiterate at later junctures that their deaths
occurred a) as a result of their approaching HaShem, b) when they offered a
strange fire, and c) that they had no children. While it is possible that the
phrase representing c) is to be associated with the end of the verses in
BaMidbar 3:4 and I Divrei HaYamim 24:2,[2]
i.e., in order to account for why the younger Elazar and Itamar were appointed
Kohanim instead of the descendents of the older Nadav and Avihu—the text states
that there were no descendents upon whom to transfer the status of Aharon’s two
older sons—it is also possible to group c) with the earlier parts of the verse
and thereby add a most curious additional reason why Nadav and Avihu died in the
first place. The verses would then read: (The two reasons why Nadav and
Avihu died are) because they tried to offer up a strange fire and because
they did not have children…; And Nadav and Avihu died before their father
because they did not have children…
It must be admitted that a reading
suggesting that the deaths of Nadav and Avihu were precipitated by their not
fathering children would appear extremely far-fetched since the seminal text in
VaYikra 10 where we first come to learn what transpired, makes no mention of the
men’s family lives and solely draws attention to their offering a “strange
fire”. The texts in BaMidbar and Divrei HaYamim are concerned with genealogy and
census taking, and therefore the absence of offspring belonging to Nadav and
Avihu is of objective interest, rather than obviously serving as an additional
judgment rendered against the two sons of Aharon. Nevertheless, the lack of
children serving as one of many rationales why HaShem Lashes out at Aharon’s two
oldest sons, is certainly one of the most well-developed ideas[3]
in the Midrashic source that contains a long list of speculations regarding why
God Punishes Nadav and Avihu during the dedication of the Tabernacle, as
described in VaYikra 10.
Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Acharei
Mot, Chapt. 6
It was taught in the name of R.
Eliezer: The only reason why Nadav and Avihu died is because 1) they taught a
Halacha before Moshe, their teacher.[4]
Ø
A story about a student who taught
a Halacha before his teacher.[5]
And his friend told Ima Shalom, his wife, that this individual would not finish
out the present year (i.e., he would die before the year was completed). And
this is what happened, that he died before the end of the year. His (the
friend’s) students said to him: Our teacher! You are a prophet! He responded: I
am not a prophet, nor am I the son of a prophet. But rather this is simply the
tradition that I received from my teachers—whomever teachers a Halacha in front
of his teacher is culpable of the death penalty.
Ø
It was taught: It is prohibited
for a student to teach a Halacha before his teacher until he is 12 “Meels”[6]
distant from him which corresponds to the (width) of the Jewish encampment in
the desert. As it is stated, (BaMidbar 33:49) “And they encamped at the
Jordan from Beit HaYeshimot until Eivel
HaShittim” (which represents this exact distance).
Ø
R. Nachum bar Yirmiya was in a
village and they (the inhabitants) would ask him (questions) and he would
instruct the answers. They said to him: This is what Rebbe (R. Yehuda HaNasi)
taught-- It is prohibited for a student to teach a Halacha before his teacher
until he is 12 “Meels” distant from him which corresponds to the (width) of the
Jewish encampment in the desert. And Rebbe Mana, your teacher resides in
Tziporri (which is within the prescribed area). He said to them: This goes
against me (i.e., this refutes my practice). Had I known (that my teacher was so
close) I would not have instructed the answers. From that moment on he did not
instruct answers.
In four places are the deaths of
the sons of Aharon mentioned, as well as their mistake. Why so many
times?[7]
In order to make known to you that there was nothing else in their past except
this single sin alone.
Ø
Said R. Eliezer: Come and see how
difficult the deaths of Nadav and Avihu were for the Holy One, Blessed Be He.
For in every place where their deaths are mentioned, their mistake is
mentioned as well.[8]
And why go to such great lengths?[9]
In order to publicize to everyone in the world and prevent them from speculating
that perhaps they were engaging in unacceptable activities secretly and it is
for this reason that they were killed.[10]
Bar Kappara in the name of R.
Yirmiya ben Elazar said: Due to four things the sons of Aharon
died:
2) for the coming close
(to HaShem),
3) for the offering up (of
the strange fire),
4) for the strange fire
itself,
5) and because they did not consult with
one another (prior to coming close and offering the strange
fire).
Ø
For the coming close, since they
entered the inner chamber, (“Kodesh HaKodashim”).[11]
Ø
For the offering up of a
sacrifice[12]
concerning which they were not commanded,
Ø
For the strange fire, that they
brought from a private stove (as opposed to the source of fire that had been
ignited from Heaven—see VaYikra
Ø
And because they did not consult
with one another.
Ø
R. Chiya taught: “Each man his
firepan”—each man from his firepan, each man on his own initiative acted, and
they did not consult with one another.[13]
Ø
R. Mani D’Shav and R. Yehoshua
D’Sichnin in the name of R. Levi: Due to four things the sons of Aharon died,
and concerning each of them, the death penalty is
appropriate:
6) because they entered without first
having washed their hands and feet with which is associated the punishment of
death, as it is
written, (Shemot 30:20) “When they come into the Tent of Meeting, they should
wash in water and not die…”
7) because they entered lacking the proper
number of Priestly garments with which is associated the punishment of
death, as
it is written, (Shemot 28:43) “And they will be on Aharon and his sons when they
come to the Tent of Meeting or when they approach the Altar to serve in
holiness, and they shouldn’t bear a sin and die…”
And what (garment) were
they lacking? Reish Lakish said the “Me’il” was missing, concerning which the
punishment of death is written, as it is said, (Shemot 28:35) “And it (the
“Me’il”) will be on Aharon in order to serve, and its sound will be heard as he
goes into the Holy (of Holies) before HaShem, and when he comes out and he will
not die”.[14]
8) because they did not have children, with
which is associated the punishment of death, as it is written, (BaMidbar 3:4)
“And Nadav and Avihu died before HaShem when they offered up a strange fire
before HaShem in the
9) and because they entered into the
Tabernacle while drunk, as it is said, (VaYikra 10:9)
“Wine and intoxicating beverages you (Kohanim) should not drink, you and your
children with you when you come into the Tent of Meeting, and you will not die,
a statute forever for your generations.
Aba Chanin said: 10) It
was because they had no wives, because we learned there, (Sifra, Achrei Mot,
Chapt 8 on VaYikra 16:6, 11, 17) “And he (the Kohen Gadol) will atone for
himself as well as his household—this is his wife”.[16]
Ø
R. Levi said: They were arrogant a
great deal of the time. They would say, “Which women are good enough for us?”
There were many unmarried women who would sit and wait for them (Nadav and
Avihu). And they (N. & A.) would say, “Our paternal uncle (Moshe) is the
king,[17]
our father (Aharon) is the Kohen Gadol, our maternal uncle is a prince (of a
tribe—a reference to Nachshon ben Aminadav; see Shemot
Ø
Said R. Menachama in the name of
R. Yehoshua bar Nachmia: Concerning them (N. & A.), David said in Tehillim
78:63) “Their fire consumed their young men and their virgins had no marriage
song”. Why were the young men consumed with fire? Because the virgins had no
marriage song.
And furthermore, from this:
(Shemot 24:1) “And to Moshe He Said, ‘Go up to HaShem, you and Aharon, Nadav and
Avihu and 70 of the Elders of Israel’”. 11) This teaches that Moshe and
Aharon were walking first, N. & A. walked behind them, and all of
Ø
R. Yudin in the name of R. Ibo
said: Both of them verbalized this idea in front of Moshe and
Aharon.
Ø
R. Pinchos said: They thought this
internally. The Holy One, Blessed Be He, Said to them: (Mishlei 27:1) “Do not
praise yourself based upon speculations regarding tomorrow, for you do not know
what today might bring!” Many young animals (who would have been expected to
outlive their parents) die and from their skins are made covers for their
mothers.
And furthermore, from this:
(Shemot 24:11) “And against the privileged ones of the Children of Israel He did
not Extend His Hand. And they saw God and they ate and they drank”. 12)
Said R. Pinchos: From this one sees that they were deserving of having the
Divine Hand Extended against them.[18]
Ø
Said R. Hoshiya: Do you think that
they brought provisions with them when they went up Sinai (i.e., was the eating
and drinking mentioned in Shemot 24:11 literal)? But rather it teaches that they
partook with their eyes of the Divine Presence, like a person who looks upon his
friend in the midst of eating a meal or sharing drinks (a level of familiarity
that is inappropriate, to say the least).
Ø
R. Yochanan said: It was literal
eating (in the sense that this was not just a figure of speech, but rather a
tangible benefit accrued to those who looked upon HaShem), as it is said,
(Mishlei 17:15) “From the light of the king (when the king looks upon one) there
is life (the person derives energy and well-being), and His Will is like the
cloud bearing the rain (which is necessary for a person’s agricultural success).
Ø
Said R. Tanchuma: This teaches
that their hearts became crass, and they stood straight up and benefited from
the Divine Presence.
Ø
R. Yehoshua D’Sichnin in the name
of R. Levi said: Moshe did not derive benefit from the Divine Presence, as it is
said, (Shemot 3:2) “And Moshe hid his face”. As a reward for his being afraid,
(Shemot 34:30) “And they were afraid to come close to him”. As a reward for
being afraid to look (at the burning bush), (BaMidbar 12:8) “And the Likeness of
God he saw”. As a reward for Moshe hiding his face, (Shemot 34:30) “And behold
horns of light emanated from his face, and they were afraid to approach him”.
Ø
But Nadav and Avihu, their eyes
derived benefit from the Divine Presence (at Sinai), but they didn’t derive
benefit from the Divine Presence...[19]
There appear to be several
separate agendas within the cumulative critique levied by the Rabbis in this
Midrashic passage against Nadav and Avihu:
a) Disrespect for and impatience with the
previous generation—1), and 11);
b) Undeserved self-assurance that they could
carry out the Tabernacle service as well as anyone else—2), 3) and
4);
c) A lack of respect for even peers, i.e.,
one another. 5);
d) Resistance to treat with respect the
Tabernacle and its formal rituals—6), 7), and 9);
e) An unwillingness to enter into
meaningful relationships with and have respect for members of the opposite sex,
and thereby participate in founding the next generation—8) and
10;
f) A lack of respect for
God—12).
Perhaps the Rabbis felt that what
is described in VaYikra 10 is just not sufficient to justify God’s Striking down
these two men to whom not only Aharon, but also the entire Jewish people were
looking for continuity and future communal service. Midrash Tanchuma sees their
errors concerning the “strange fire” as merely the tip of the iceberg, and that
when an individual has no respect for religious ritual, he is undermining the
entire fabric of Jewish culture and tradition. Preserving ritual entails
learning from those who have come before, watching carefully in order to
replicate time-honored behaviors and ceremonies, being empathic to one’s
co-religionists and fellow human beings, and dedicated to Judaism continuing on
into the future. Nadav and Avihu consequently become the embodiment of the
negation of these values and therefore an abject and powerful lesson to all
students of the Tora.
Shabbat Shalom, and may we learn
the Tora’s lessons well and take them to heart.
[1] See immediately below for a
discussion regarding how to interpret this latter phrase, i.e., “and they did
not have children”.
[2] BaMidbar 3:4
And Nadav and Avihu died before
HaShem when they offered up a strange fire before HaShem in the desert of Sinai
(this is the completion of the reasons why they died; the second half of the
verse might be discussing another matter entirely), and (because) they
did not have children and (therefore) Elazar and Itamar were made
Kohanim before Aharon their father.
I Divrei HaYamim
24:2
And Nadav and Avihu died before
their father (this is the completion of the reasons why they died), and
(because) they did not have children and (therefore) Elazar
and Itamar were made Kohanim.
[3] While reason 8) below that
specifically mentions that they did not have children is stated in a fairly
straightforward manner, I associate 8) with 10)—why did they not have
children? Because they could not bring themselves to marry women whom they
deemed inferior to themselves. And 10) is discussed at considerable
length.
[4] “Teaching a Halacha before one’s
teacher” is considered a supreme act of disrespect. The proper thing to do when
asked a question is to refer the questioner to one’s teacher as an indication
that a student should never usurp a teacher’s authority without the teacher’s
express permission. It’s one thing to answer a question when the teacher is not
present; but to do so “before the teacher”, i.e., it is quite possible to send
the individual with the question to the teacher who is standing by, this is an
indication of serious lack of respect, and is viewed extremely negatively in
Halachic terms.
[5] This Midrashic passage is
constructed in a similar manner to a Talmudic discussion. After presenting a
hypothesis, a number of sources are cited in an associative rather than
logically rigorous manner, in order to provide credibility to the hypothesis. If
the view can be validated in contexts other than the story of Nadav and Avihu,
then it becomes a possible explanation for their demise as well.
[6] A measure of length comparable to a
mile.
[7] The Midrash’s question is the
problem that we posed at the outset of this essay.
[8] R. Eliezer’s comment might force
the issue of interpreting “And they did not have children” in Divrei HaYamim as
indicating some sort of shortcoming, since in that Biblical text, no other cause
of their death is listed. On the other hand, perhaps R. Eliezer was only
referring to verses in the Chumash as opposed to the rest of
NaCh.
[9] An underlying assumption of all
Biblical commentators is that there should be no superfluity in the text. When
an idea or an event is repeated in the Bible for no apparent reason, “red flags
are unfurled” until a proper resolution can be agreed upon.
[10] Alternatively, some might speculate
that they died in order to punish Aharon for his role in the construction of the
Golden Calf. Consequently, the Tora insists that their deaths was brought about
by their own actions, not someone else’s, in the spirit of Devarim 24:16,
“Fathers will not die due to their children (‘s actions), and children will not
die to their fathers (‘ actions); an individual dies for his own
sin.”
[11] The restriction against coming into
the Holy of Holies at any time is explicitly stated after the deaths of
Nadav and Avihu, in Parshat Acharei Mot:
VaYikra
16:1-2
And HaShem Spoke to Moshe after
the deaths of the two sons of Aharon when they approached before Hashem and
they died.
And HaShem Said to Moshe: Speak to
Aharon your brother that he cannot come in at all times into the holy place
within the curtain before the covering which is upon the Ark, so that he will
not die, for I Appear in the cloud above the Ark cover.
Consequently, one could think that
they were not aware that there was any restriction against their entering the
restricted area. On the other hand, it is possible that Moshe was aware of this,
and had they discussed the matter with him prior to carrying out their
sacrifice, they would have avoided the danger. All that VaYikra 16:1-2 is
stating is that the prohibition to enter at will should be told to Aharon, but
this is not necessarily the first time that Moshe learns of such a rule.
Furthermore, if Moshe did know that there was such a prohibition which could
lead to a Kohen’s death, and he failed to tell Aharon and the other Kohanim (a
possible parallel appears in Shemot 16:22-23, where Moshe tells the people about
the double portion of Manna falling on the eve of Shabbat only after the
fact), then he probably felt at least indirectly responsible for the deaths of
his nephews!
[12] Certain sacrifices involve incense
exclusively and do not require animals, birds, wine, flour etc. Consequently by
taking a strange fire source and adding incense to it, this constituted a
sacrifice. It can also be noted that the incense offering given in the Holy of
Holies was strictly the province of the Kohen Gadol on Yom HaKippurim. If they
decided to undertake such a sacrifice on their own, there is an implication of
an Oedipal desiring to usurp their father’s status, suggested in reason
11) below.
[13] There is an assumption that had
Nadav and Avihu taken the time to discuss with one another what they each
decided to do individually, “cooler heads may have prevailed”. As the
commentator Eitz Yosef on the Midrash points out, (Mishlei
[14] Although some commentators, e.g.,
RaShI and many who follow after him, understand this verse to refer to any and
all of the Priestly garments, i.e., whichever one is omitted, it brings about
the death penalty for both the Kohen Gadol as well as a Kohen Hedyot, HaKetav
VeHaKabbala suggests that just as Tzitzit are designed to remind an individual
of all of the Mitzvot incumbent upon him via the sense of sight, the bells at
the hem of the “Me’il” are intended to auditorily constantly remind the Kohen
Gadol of all of the extra responsibilities he has along with all other Mitzvot
in the Tora, recognizing that if he performs the Divine Service by rote, he has
not fulfilled the Commandment properly.
[15] The critique that the Rabbis are
levying against Nadav and Avihu is not to be extended to those people who
unfortunately try to have children but are unable to conceive, or those who
would like to be married, but circumstances have not permitted them to do so. As
becomes clear in reason 10), the Rabbis suggest that Nadav and Avihu thought
that marriage and family was simply beneath them and they had better things to
do with their time.
[16] While a simple interpretation of
the verse would lead to the conclusion that if the Kohen Gadol is
married, he is to atone not only for himself, but also for his spouse and other
family members, the Midrash Halacha is putting a different spin upon the verse,
i.e., that only if there is a household—at least a spouse—to atone for, should
the individual be a Kohen Gadol in the first place. Nadav and Avihu acted in the
capacity that a Kohen Gadol would in terms of entering the Holy of Holies with
incense, but were not qualified to do so since they were unmarried. The
interpretation resonates with a Halachic requirement for a “Shliach Tzibbur”
(one who leads the congregation in prayer) during the Days of
Awe:
Mishna Berura on Orach Chayim 53, #18
…Pri Megadim writes on (Shulchan
Aruch, Orach Chayim) 581:1 on Rosh
HaShana and Yom HaKippurim it is required that the “Shliach Tzibbur” be married
and at least 30, which implies that the rest of the year, one can be chosen even
if he is not married. However, someone who is married is always preferable to an
unmarried individual, even if he is past Bar
Mitzva.
Particularly on Musaf of Yom
HaKippurim the “Shliach Tzibbur” recites the
[17] Although the institution of
kingship as described in Devarim 17:15-20, does not take effect until the
beginning of I Shmuel where the transition in leadership from a prophet/judge to
a monarchy in the person of Shaul is the focus of discussion, Moshe functioned
as a de facto king during the time that he led them out of Egypt and for 40
years in the Sinai.
[18] This approach suggests that already
on Sinai, Nadav and Avihu, along with the elders that accompanied them up the
mountain, had incurred HaShem’s Wrath for their disrespectful attitude towards
Him. (Their eating and drinking is in stark contrast to the Tora’s insistence
several times (Shemot 34:28; Devarim 9:9, 18) that Moshe neither ate nor drank
for the 40 day periods when he was atop Sinai.
[19] The critique appears to involve
their refusing to allow their experience to be internalized and thereby bring
them to greater spiritual heights, but rather they limited themselves to a
visual, sensual experience that could be misleading, and totally meaningless in
terms of personal
development.