Parshat Shemini (Leviticus 9:1–11:47) and its accompanying Haftorah in Shmuel II (6:1-19), are parallels in many ways. Both describe the dedication of at least part of the Tabernacle/Temple. Both involve the death of at least one of the participants in the ceremonies. Both describe the reactions of the leaders to the tragedies that take place among the rejoicing. In Parshat Shimini, tragedy strikes when Nadav and Avihu, two of the sons of Aharon, enter the Mishkan (Tabernacle) with pans carrying fire and the ketoret offering and offer them before G-d, even though He didn’t command them do so. A fire “comes forth from G-d” and consumes them, killing them. Moshe and Aharon’s responses to this incident are peculiar. The verse immediately after the deaths reads simply “Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD meant when He said: 'Through those near to Me I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people.' And Aaron was silent.” (Leviticus 10:3) Then, the bodies are ordered removed from the Tabernacle and Aharon and his sons are forbidden from mourning the loss, while the rest of the nation is specifically commanded to mourn the “burning that the Lord has wrought.” This is an odd reaction to say the least. What kind of response is Moshe’s statement “This is what the LORD meant when He said: Through those near to Me I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people” to the death of Aharon’s sons. And what does it mean that Aharon was silent? Up to this point he hadn’t even said anything! Beyond that, why were he and his remaining sons forbidden from mourning the loss of Nadav and Avihu, while the rest of the nation was specifically commanded to do the opposite? Peculiar indeed. But let’s take a break here to take a look at this week’s haftorah. The haftorah relates the journey of the Ark from the house of Avinadav to the area that would become the site of the Temple in Jerusalem. Once again, tragedy strikes. The cart carrying the Ark teeters and Uzzah reaches out to steady it and is struck down “on the spot” and “he died there beside the Ark of G-d.” Again the response is interesting, but is at least easier to swallow. “David was distressed because the Lord had inflicted a breach upon Uzzah…David was afraid of the Lord that day; he said, ‘How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?’ So David would not bring the Ark of the LORD to his place in the City of David; instead, David diverted it to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite.” The story proceeds to relate how Obed-edom’s house was blessed, leading to David’s decision to finally bring the Ark to the City of David amid great festivities. Although this seems like a more natural reaction, there are still peculiarities. Why would David be scared by the punishment of Uzzah? Uzzah was punished for his own actions it would seem, why should that make David scared to bring the Ark to his place? Why divert it to another person’s home? If there really was a reason to be scared, wasn’t he just putting Obed-edom in harm’s way? Also, the language describing David’s issue with Uzzah’s death is odd. “David was distressed because the Lord had made a breach upon Uzzah.” What’s this idea of making a breach? Why was that what distressed David? Interestingly as well, the word describing G-d’s response to Uzzah’s action and David’s response to G-d’s response is similar. “Vayichar” (And he was angered/distressed) Parshiyot and Haftorahs are usually connected by common themes. Let’s see if there’s any similarities between the response to Uzzah’s death and the response to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The Malbim looks at Moshe and Aharon’s response and says that Moshe’s statement “This is what the LORD meant when He said: Through those near to Me I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people” means that when G-d revealed His Honor in the Mishkan, He sanctified the Tent of Meeting in the Mishkan by showing that even His holy ones could not come close to Him. Even though G-d knew this was going to happen, “Through those near to Me I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people” could have resulted in a number of different outcomes and was not a closed deal until this moment. The Malbim explains that through this Aharon saw that his sons were connected to the knowledge of G-d on such a high level that they, the ones who knew, returned to the One that they knew about and joined His Oneness. “And on this he was silent and accepted the reward,” writes the Malbim, quoting the Talmud (Tractate Zevachim 115b). The discussion in the Talmud that the Malbim quotes goes even further and connects this idea to a statement in Psalms by David: “’Resign yourself [dom] to the Lord, and wait patiently [vehitḥolel] for Him’ (Psalms 37:7). Although He strikes down many corpses [ḥalalim] around you, you be silent and do not complain.” The Abarbanel takes Moshe’s statement and connects it to Nadav and Avihu’s rush to get close and offer sacrifices, even though they were not commanded or given permission to do so. “Meaning through those who get too close to My service I will be sanctified. And before the people I will be honored because it was fit for it to be before the people so that they would fear coming to the Temple and act with awe and respect.” In reference to the commandment to Aharon and his sons not to mourn, the Malbim calls it a temporary commandment issued specifically for this instance, because Nadav and Avihu had the status of those killed by a court and should not be mourned. But this raises a contradiction! Immediately afterwards, the entire nation of Israel is commanded specifically to mourn them. In fact the Malbim learns that the people would have been punished if they didn’t mourn Nadav and Avihu. The Sforno emphasizes that they needed to mourn because “two outstanding righteous people had been removed from them. They would therefore not be denied the eulogies due to the deceased.” Rabbeinu Bahya goes even further and says that the mourning for Nadav and Avihu was even greater than the mourning for Aharon and Moshe because Aharon and Moshe were mourned as leaders and Nadav and Avihu were mourned as close family members! The Siftei Chakhamim disagrees and says that the brotherhood was to Aharon and his remaining sons and that the weeping was done to identify with their pain. So as we can see, there’s a lot of contradictory possibilities here. Just to give a bit of background, these discussions are preceded by a debate about what exactly the sin of Nadav and Avihu was. There are two main categories of possibilities presented: 1. They entered the Mishkan drunk and 2. They were haughty or desired power, with some commentators going as far as saying that they actively hoped that Moshe and Aharon would die so that they could be the leaders. One source brings four separate reasons for their deaths: because they went close [to G-d’s Honor] and brought an offering without being commanded and brought a strange fire and did not ask advice from one another. In all the different opinions brought concerning the sin of Nadav and Avihu, one thing stands out: Nadav and Avihu were punished for overreaching their position, even though they were on an equal or greater level in most ways with Moshe and Aharon. Even though the day was a day of great happiness, their deaths were not delayed and their sins were not simply forgiven. They were used as a tragic example to set a precedent. And yet, even then, even though they sinned in such a way that it warranted divine punishment, they were still regarded as great, they were still afforded the eulogies of the deceased. This one action did not negate the rest of who they were, even in death. In some ways it was even the opposite. Their deaths simply amplified the greatness of their other actions. The story of Nadav and Avihu is an odd mix of tragedy, respect and joy. It happened at a time that was essentially a festival and their father and brothers were forced to carry on the festival, even as their bodies were dragged out of the Mishkan. Moshe takes these deaths and uses them to surprisingly praise Nadav and Avihu, to show how close they must have been, in a statement that seems to be aimed at comforting Aharon and raising up their legacy, even though they had sinned. Even then, Aharon mourns in the ways that he can. He and his sons refuse to eat any more than they need to of the sacrifices, as it would be improper to rejoice amid such a personal tragedy. So what do we have then, from this tragedy? Who were Nadav and Avihu? Well, in the simplest terms, they were human. They were on an incredibly high level. They saw the revelation at Mount Sinai from a closer vantage point than almost anyone else in the nation. They were learned and righteous. But, they had their flaws and they were punished for them. But even though their flaws brought about a sin that led to their deaths, it did not negate their greatness. In fact, it amplified it in some ways. So let’s return to our haftorah.
Uzza. What do we know about Uzza? Not much. We’ll once again turn to the Malbim, who introduces us to Uzzah in a relatively unfavorable light. When the Ark was moved from the house of Abinadab towards the City of David, the Israelites placed it on a cart, instead of carrying it on their shoulders in the traditional way. In fact, Rashi states that it is because of this decision that Uzza’s death happened, because they did not consult with G-d before carrying the Ark and thereby made this mistake. It is Uzza and his brother who are tasked with guiding the cart. The Malbim says that they should have learnt from the Philistines, because even they knew that the cows would direct themselves. When they carried the Ark they touched it directly, and Ahio, Uzzah’s brother, walked in front of the Ark, putting himself before the Ark. Quite simply, it seems that mistake after mistake was made in the moving of the Ark. When they get to the threshing floor of Nacon, the final tragic mistake is carried out by Uzzah. As the Malbim writes, “After they did all these things, Uzzah added to the crime by reaching out his hand to grab the Ark because he thought that it needed to be steadied so it wouldn’t stumble.” The Sages write that the Ark carried itself. The Malbim concludes that Uzzah was struck down because he forgot the sanctity of the Ark and the fear of G-d and “this is a great sin” as he was “standing right before the King” so to speak. David sees all of this and realizes his mistake. He had always served G-d through love and happiness and had enjoyed the mercy and grace from G-d that came through this type of service, but this incident instilled in him the fear of punishment which is a lower level of service, says the Malbim. He then placed the Ark by Obed-edom because Obed-edom was a Levi and it was proper for the Ark to be with him. The Ark proceeded to bless his household and then David found it proper to bring the Ark into the City of David. The Sages teach that the blessing occurred to show that the Ark was not dangerous or a cause of death and this allowed David to bring the Ark with joy once again and with the proper respect as well. In many ways, this story is relatively easy to link to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. In both cases, we have the tragic mistake which leads to death. In both cases, the mistake is caused through arrogance and a lack of respect and awe. In both cases, it seems that the punishment goes too far. Aharon is seemingly shocked into silence. David is shocked into outright fear. In both cases, the negative effects are overcome. Aharon continues his service and the ketoret service in which Nadav and Avihu were killed later comes to end a plague that afflicts the nation. David eventually sees the good in the Ark and in the service of G-d and brings the Ark to the City of David with joy, but also with the proper respect. In both cases, the death comes to stress a point, to show what must be done and what must not be done. To strike the awe of G-d into the people and into the leaders. But there are also differences between the two cases. In Aharon’s case, he overcame the sorrow and loss or at least learned to live with it even though he did not necessarily have the good side of the ketoret presented directly before him. In David’s case, he only overcame the sorrow and fear once the Ark was actively shown to be a harbinger of good. With Nadav and Avihu, the entire people mourned and their high stature was emphasized by Moshe to Aharon despite their sin. With Uzzah, he seems to almost be there simply to serve as a conduit, with no personal identity that receives mention. Even the language by Uzzah is almost more accidental. The Hebrew phrase “Paratz Hashem Peretz B’Uzzah” (literally, the Lord breached a breach) is used to describe how G-d conducted the punishment against Uzza, as if the punishment broke out in a flash amid the intense anger. With Nadav and Avihu, it’s a more deliberate and direct “vateitzei eish m’lifnei Hashem” (and fire came forth from the Lord). Perhaps we can learn from this the nature of the situations and why the responses occurred the way they did. With Nadav and Avihu, their sin came from within. They acted on their own initiative and were subsequently punished directly for their sins. They were great, they simply misused the stature. Uzzah, however, was simply part of a series of mistakes that we have no reason to believe he should or would have any reason to object to. We know almost nothing about Uzzah in the end of the day. He was a casualty of a sort of national misconduct. But oddly enough, it may be that Uzzah’s death struck harder. He shocked the King of Israel into proper behavior. His death completely halted the celebrations, while Nadav and Avihu’s deaths were drowned amid the celebration. While Nadav and Avihu had stature in their actions up until their deaths, Uzzah’s death itself struck the literal fear of G-d into the people and the leaders to the point that they halted to a stop to reconsider the whole situation. I can only imagine that only a truly great person would be able to inflict such a blow to the national psyche. So were these two incidents the same? It seems not. But they do teach us the same lessons. The need for respect and awe of the Divine, but also the need to recognize and respect the greatness and good within people, even if it’s not right on the surface and even if it’s scuffed up a bit by some flaws. Have a peaceful and happy Shabbos
Comments