 |
|
|
The Israel
Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
Parashat Hashavua This
parasha series is dedicated ********************************************************
PARASHAT
SHEMINI On the Deaths
of Nadav and Avihu By Rav Chanoch
Waxman I The deaths of
Nadav and Avihu constitute one of the more mysterious events of Sefer
Vayikra. The Torah presents the story in no more than two short
verses: And Aharon's
sons, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire pan, put fire in it, and laid incense
on it; and offered before the Lord a strange fire, which He had not commanded
them. And a fire went out from the Lord and consumed them, and they died before
the Lord.
(10:1-2)
Although the Torah does refer to the offering of "a strange fire that had
not been commanded," the underlying reason for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu,
the cause of the violent punishment they suffer, remains obscure, hidden behind
the veil of the Torah's brief account.
In contrast to the opacity of the Torah's brief presentation, Midrash
Vayikra Rabba (20:6) elaborates no less than twelve distinct explanations for
the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The possibilities include their having entered
the holy of holies without being commanded, having been drunk at the time of
their offering, or having delivered a halakhic ruling in front of their master
Moshe.
This just sharpens the problem of the text's brevity. The plethora of
midrashic explanations merely highlights the lack of clear explanation in the
text of the Torah. If so, what exactly constitutes the sin of Nadav and Avihu,
the "real cause" of their deaths? II
Let us begin by taking a look at the aftermath of the deaths of Nadav and
Avihu. Immediately after reporting the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, the Torah
presents a strange "conversation" between Moshe and
Aharon:
Then Moshe said
to Aharon, This is what the Lord said: "I will be sanctified in those that come
near to Me (bi-kerovai ekadeish), and before all the people I will be glorified
(ekaveid)." And Aharon was silent. (10:3)
In fact, this "conversation" is not a conversation at all. Aharon
responds with silence. Apparently, Moshe's claim that the deaths of Nadav and
Avihu somehow conform with God's statement that He will be sanctified and
glorified with that which "comes near to Him" silences Aharon. Somehow, Moshe's
statement "explains" the deaths of Nadav and Avihu and perhaps even consoles
Aharon. Hence his silence.
But this seems completely obscure. When did God say this? For that
matter, what is the connection between God's sanctification and glory through
"kerovai" (translated as either "those who are close to Me," "that which comes
near Me," or even "offerings") and the deaths of Nadav and Avihu?
As Rashi (10:3) points out, Moshe's statement probably refers to a key
passage located at the end of Chapter Twenty-nine of Shemot. After delineating
the procedure of the miluim, the seven-day installation of the priests and
dedication of the Mishkan, and outlining the rules for daily sacrifices, the
Torah states: This shall be a
continuous burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the Tent of
Meeting before the Lord… And I will meet there with the Children of Israel, and
it shall be sanctified by My glory (ve-nikdash bi-kevodi)… And I will dwell
among the Children of At the
culmination of the miluim process and through the initiation of daily
sacrifices, God's glory, i.e. presence, will descend to the Mishkan and dwell
there. This will sanctify and glorify the Mishkan and God in the eyes of the
Children of Israel.
This prediction comes to fruition right before the deaths of Nadav and
Avihu. Vayikra 9:23-24 details how after the bringing of the final offerings of
the eighth day, God's glory appeared to the eyes of all of … and the glory
of the Lord appeared to all the people. And a fire came out from before the Lord
and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering… and when the people saw, they
cried out and fell upon their faces. (9:23:24)
To put this all together, when Moshe tells Aharon that God had said
"bi-kerovai ekadeish," when he uses the key terms of "offering/coming close,"
"glory," and "sanctification," he reminds Aharon that God's presence is now
located in the Mishkan. If so, then when Nadav and Avihu offered in the Mishkan
a non-mandated, strange and alien offering of incense, they entered into the
very presence of God. By no accident,
the Torah utilizes the phrase "va-yakrivu lifnei Hashem" to describe the process
of their incense offering. Whether we interpret the phrase as referring to no
more that the fact that they offered incense to the Lord, or like the Midrash,
as referring to the fact that they themselves ventured into the holy of holies,
makes not a whit of difference. Either way, they have improperly entered the
presence and compound of the Lord. Consequently, they are consumed.
By no accident,
they are consumed by fire, the visual image of the glory of God seen by
Finally, by no
accident, the text utilizes the same phrase for God's "consumption" of the
offering upon the altar and the devouring of Nadav and Avihu. In the case of the
offering, we are told, "And a fire came out from in front of the Lord and
consumed the burnt offering" (9:24). So too in the case of Nadav and Avihu, the
text states: "And a fire came out from in front of the Lord and consumed them"
(10:2). On this
interpretation, we need not locate a particular moral failing on the part of
Nadav and Avihu. In a certain sense they need not have "sinned." Their very act
of unwarranted trespass, of non-commanded entry and offering, is the cause of
their death. We may even claim that their deaths contain an element or "spark"
of holiness. They die "before the Lord" (10:2) and are mourned by all of
The Netziv
(10:1) famously maintains that the "strange fire" (10:1) represented an excess
of love of God in their hearts, an overly bold desire to approach God. Although
it may be extreme, this interpretation allows us to view Moshe's claim to Aharon
of "bi-kerovai ekadeish" and the parallel between the consumption of the
offering upon the altar and the consumption of Nadav and Avihu as rendering
Nadav and Avhihu themselves as "offerings" to God. They have unwittingly
transformed themselves into actual offerings and been consumed by his presence.
III The mechanistic
or unwitting-offering interpretation approach outlined above should go a long
way towards explaining the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. Nevertheless, identifying
the cause of their deaths is but one of the challenges in reading the Torah's
presentation of the tragedy. As mentioned
previously, the text devotes a mere two verses to reporting the core action
(10:1-2). Nevertheless, the entire corpus of Chapter Ten revolves around the
deaths and their aftermath. To cite an example already discussed, in the very
next verse Moshe "explains" the death of Nadav and Avihu to Aharon. Likewise,
the chapter includes sections detailing the removal of Nadav and Avihu's bodies
from the sanctuary (10:4-5), forbidding Aharon and his sons from active mourning
(10:6-7), and outlining rules for proper priestly conduct (10:9-11).
Finally, the
chapter concludes with a dialogue between Moshe, Aharon and the "remaining sons"
of Aharon (10:12-20). The conversation includes Moshe's commands regarding the
proper disposition of the offerings made that day (10:12-15), his demand for a
"missing" sin offering which had been burnt rather than eaten by the priests,
his anger at the "remaining sons" for mishandling the offering (10:16-18), and
Aharon's reference to the tragedy that had befallen him that day (10:19). All of
this can be mapped as follows:
Summarizing the chapter in this way leaves us with the expectation of
some sort of essential connection between its various parts. While events do
unfold in chronological order, something more than mere chronology seems to
unite the chapter. We expect to find a thematic connection between the deaths,
on the one hand, and the latter sections, such as the "code of priestly
behavior" and the "resumption of the eighth day," on the other. If so, what
constitutes the guiding concept and organizational principle of the
chapter?
At first glance, we may be inclined to make use of the concepts developed
above. Until now, we have explained the deaths of Nadav and Avihu as deriving
from unwitting trespass upon the presence of God. In other words, they commit a
fateful error in "hilkhot kodshim," the laws of sanctity. Not fully cognizant of
the sacred status of the area they enter and the proper conditions for the act
of incense offering, they are inevitably consumed.
Likewise, the remainder of the chapter can be viewed as connected to the
issue of the status of "sanctity" and the proper mode of relation to sanctified
entities, areas and objects. Sections two and three, the removal of the bodies
from the sanctuary by others than the priests, and the prohibition of mourning
by the priests, close with the explanatory phrase, "for the anointing oil of the
Lord is upon you" (10:7). The priests cannot defile themselves by contact with
the bodies, participate in public rituals of mourning, or even leaving the door
of the tent of meeting (10:7), because they are priests. They are sanctified
entities and must be wary of their status.
So too, section five, the "resumption of the eighth day," can be viewed
as revolving around the very same issue of relation to sanctity. In section
five, the dialogue with Aharon and his "remaining sons," Moshe delivers
instructions on how to deal with the offerings made that day and where and how
the priests should consume them (10:12-15). His anger at the "remaining sons"
stems from their apparent disregard of the details of the laws of "most holy"
objects and their careless burning, as opposed to eating, of the sin offering
(10:16-18). As Nadav and Avihu disregarded the details of permitted and
forbidden, commanded and not commanded, so too the "remaining sons" now
disregard the laws of sanctity.
Finally, section four, the "priestly code," also appears to fit this
theme. The opening law of the conduct code consists of the rule of sobriety for
entering the sanctuary and the accompanying possibility of death (10:9). After
the deaths of Nadav and Avihu upon entering the sanctuary and the assignment of
entering the sanctuary to remove the bodies to non-priests (10:4), the Torah
continues to discourse upon the theme of the proper relation between priests and
the act of entering the sanctuary. One may enter the sacred place only under
certain conditions. Nevertheless,
this is not enough. The full text of the mini-parasha detailing the code of
priestly conduct runs as follows: And the Lord
spoke to Aharon, saying, Do not drink wine or strong drink, you nor your sons
when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die; it is a everlasting
law throughout the generations. And you shall distinguish between the holy and
unholy and between unclean and clean. And you shall teach the Children of Israel
all of the laws which the Lord has spoken to them through Moses.
(10:9-11) While the motif
of sanctity and relation to sanctity may be enough to explain just about
everything connected to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu and the structure of
Chapter Ten, it does not explain the inclusion of all of the priest's code.
While the function of distinguishing between holy and unholy and perhaps clean
and unclean requires little explanation, the focus on the general Torah teaching
function of the priest seems surprising. What is the connection between the
"laws of sanctity" and the role of the priests as teachers of
IV
Rather than reach for the obvious and elaborate upon the status of law as
sacred object, the priests as custodians of the sacred, and so on, I would like
to return to the "strange fire" of Nadav and Avihu and focus on a hitherto
neglected aspect of the story.
The tragedy of Nadav and Avihu's deaths did not occur in a vacuum.
Rather, the Torah carefully links the story of their death with the events
reported in Chapter Nine, the story of the eighth day. On the simplest
level, reading Parashat Shemini leaves the impression that they died almost
immediately after the crescendo of the events of the eighth day, the appearance
of God's presence and the consumption of the Children of Israel's offering by
the divine fire (9:23-10:2). Moreover, as pointed out above, the Torah parallels
the consumption of the offering and the consumption of Nadav and Avihu by
utilizing the exact same language to describe the two events. In both cases, a
fire goes out from before the Lord and consumes (9:24, 10:2). Perhaps based upon
this parallel, Rashbam maintains that the two events happened
simultaneously. But this is not
all. Throughout Chapter Nine, which recounts the events of the eight day, the
Torah makes extensive use of the term "come close/approach/offer," based upon
the verb stem k-r-v, and the term "command" (tz-v-h). For example, consider the
following verses: And Moshe said:
This is the thing which the Lord COMMANDED (tziva) you to do, and the glory of
God shall appear to you. And Moshe said to Aharon: APPROACH (kerav) the altar
and perform your sin offering and burnt offering and make atonement for yourself
and for the people, and make the offering (korban) of the people and atone for
them as the Lord COMMANDED (tziva). And Aharon APPROACHED (va-yikrav) to the
altar…
(9:6-8)
Altogether, the term "command" appears five times throughout the chapter
(9:5, 6, 7, 10, 21). Not including the variation of "korban," the term
"approach/offer" appears eight times (9:2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17). The chapter
seems to build up a complex of concepts to foreshadow the deaths of Nadav and
Avihu. In what might be thought of as a "reversing parallel," the Torah utilizes
the exact same terms to describe the fateful act of Nadav and Avihu.
… and they
offered/approached/brought close (va-yakrivu) before the Lord a strange fire,
which He had NOT commanded (tziva) them. (10:1)
The essence of
Nadav and Avihu's error lies in not apprehending this connection between
"command" and "approach." The appearance of God's presence, atonement, coming
close to God and the like depends on carrying out the precise commands of God.
Only by virtue of fulfillment of the exact command can one achieve "closeness"
with God.
It is precisely their creativity, their substitution of self and their
own version of worship in place of the mechanical motions of God's commands that
constitutes their error and the cause of their deaths. In other words, their
death results from far more than an unwitting straying into the precincts of the
Lord and the automatic result of encounter with the presence of God. Their death
results from a fundamental misconception of what priesthood is about and what it
means to serve God.
While this may seem rather striking, the larger context of the overall
"miluim" narrative may support this interpretation.
As of the beginning of the execution of the miluim instructions, Aharon
and his sons appear to possess near equal status. Chapter Eight of Sefer
Vayikra, the story of the seven days of miluim, opens with the command to "take
Aharon and his sons with him" (8:2). Just as Moshe brings Aharon to the door of
the Tent of Meeting to wash and dress him, so too he brings the sons of Aharon
to the door of the Tent of Meeting to wash and dress them (8:6-13). The sons of
Aharon also place their hands on the heads of the various offerings (8:14, 18,
22), have blood placed upon them (8:23-24), participate in the wave offering
(8:27), and consume the bread and meat of the miluim offerings (8:31). In fact,
every mention of Aharon carries with it either a modifier of "and his sons" or a
parallel process performed on or by his sons (see 8:2, 6, 13-14, 18, 22, 24, 27,
30-31, 36).
But on the eighth day (at the beginning of Parashat Shemini), a radical
shift ensues. Although the eighth day opens with Moshe's calling to "Aharon, his
sons and the elders of
All this should shed new light on the subsequent acts of Nadav and Avihu,
explicitly identified as "the sons of Aharon," and their taking of "ish
machtato," each man HIS firepan. Their offering "before the Lord" (10:1)
constitutes a radical reassertion of the role and significance of the "the sons
of Aharon." They too are capable of serving before the Lord. They too are
priests, the spiritual elite chosen by God to draw down His presence amongst the
Children of Israel. They choose incense, with its obvious symbolism linking the
cloud and the divine presence, and seek to come close to God. Once again, the
story turns out to be about the self, the spiritual voice and the revolutionary
religion of the sons of Aharon. V
To close the circle, all of this should help provide new perspective on
the structure of Chapter Ten, on the conceptual connection between the death of
Nadav and Avihu on the one hand and Moshe's critique of the "remaining sons" and
the "code of priestly conduct" on the other.
As mentioned previously, the core of section five, the "dialogue of the
remaining sons" or "the resumption of the eighth day," involves Moshe's search
for the "missing" sin offering. And Moshe
sought out the goat of the sin offering and behold, it was burnt, and he was
angry with Elazar and Itamar, Aharon's remaining sons, and said: Why did you not
eat the sin offering in the sacred area? For it is most holy, and He has given
it to you bear the guilt of the community to make atonement for them before the
Lord. (10:16-17)
Moshe accuses the remaining priests not just of violating the
technicalities of the laws of sanctified objects, but of a fundamental
dereliction of duty. If the priests do not consume the sin offering in the
appropriate matter, it does not achieve atonement for the people of
In fact, the
text only mentions a sin offering of a goat at one other point in the narrative.
The Children of Israel are commanded to bring as their first joint offering, a
"goat for a sin offering," as preface to atonement and the descent of the divine
presence (9:3-4). In other words, in accusing the priests of mishandling the sin
offering, Moshe accuses the brothers of Nadav and Avihu of acting not on behalf
of the Children of Israel but rather on behalf of themselves, in accordance with
their own priorities, interpretation of priesthood and spiritual agenda. He
accuses them of the error of Nadav and Avihu, of serving themselves rather than
God and
This brings us back to the inclusion of the code of priestly conduct and
its connection to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. We no longer need wonder about
the inclusion of a code of priestly conduct, consisting of a demand for
sobriety, strict concern for the technicalities, distinctions and minutiae of
the law, and the teaching of Torah to the people of For Further
Study 1)
As mentioned
above, Vayikra Rabba 20:6 cites twelve distinct opinions regarding the sin of
Nadav and Avihu. i) See Rashi 10:2. Try to explain why Rashi chooses to cite
these two opinions. Alternatively, try to base these two opinions on the text
utilizing the material in the shiur. ii) One of the midrashic opinions mentioned
in shiur maintains that Nadav and Avihu entered the holy of holies. See 10:1-2,
16:1-5, 12-13. Do these verses prove this position? iii) See Ramban 10:2 and
Shemot 29:30. What is the function of incense according to Ramban? Does Ramban
assume the midrash mentioned above? Try to deduce exactly what opinion Ramban
maintains regarding the sin of Nadav and Avihu. 2)
Reread 10:3.
See Rashbam, Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Ramban 10:3. i) How does Rashbam's position
differ fundamentally from the other commentaries? Explain how Rashbam's
interpretation creates thematic unity in 10:3-7. Compare this view to the
structural claims in the shiur. ii) What constitutes the fundamental point(s) of
difference between Rashi and Ramban? iii) How do all of these commentaries
differ fundamentally from the interpretation of "bi-kerovai ekadeish" proposed
in the shiur? (Define the referent of
"bi-kerovai.") 3)
Read 9:1-3. See
Rashi 9:2. Compare Shemot 32:8 and Vayikra 10:2. Think about the relationship
between the sin of the golden calf and the sin of Nadav and Avihu. Are they
conceptually parallel in some crucial way? Try to differentiate between Aharon's
role in the two stories. 4)
Scan 11:1-47.
Read 11:44-47 carefully. Reread 10:8-11. Explain why the parasha is located at
this point. See Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Ramban 11:1. Why is the parasha addressed
also to Aharon?
|