April 9, 2021
Nadav, Avihu, and the Lost Ark
Shemini, 5781
This week’s Haftorah tells us the story of King David bringing the Holy Ark (aron hakodesh) from Kiryat Yearim to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:1-7:17). Unfortunately, King David made a tragic mistake and instead of having Levites carry the aron hakodesh, he put it on a new wagon. When the wagon swayed, Uza the son of Avinadav reached out to steady the aron. This was a deadly breach of protocol and so Uza was struck dead by Hashem (2 Samuel, 6:7). We learn from this story that the power of the aron hakodesh is incredibly dangerous and deadly.
In this week’s study of the daf yomi we come across another story about the potency of the aron hakodesh.
The Talmud discusses different opinions as to the whereabouts of the aron hakodesh. One opinion is that the aron hakodesh was brought to Babylon by Nevuchadnezzar as part of the destruction of the First Beit Hamikdash. A second theory is that the aron hakodesh is buried under the Holy of Holies in the Beit Hamikdash.
A third approach is told in the following story:
“There was once a kohen who was disqualified for full service and therefore was assigned to the menial job of peeling back layers of the wood to ready them for the fires of the altar. He needed to do this in order to make sure that there were no worms in the wood. One day in the middle of doing this he noticed that there was a different stone that was out of place. He rushed to tell others that there was an out of place stone in the wood chamber. Before he was able to finish telling the full story, his soul left him, and he died. His fellow kohanim then knew with certainty that the aron was hidden underneath the wood chamber. Rabbi Hoshaya taught a different version of the story: He said the kohen had tapped on the stone with a mallet [kurenas] to determine if it was hollow underneath the stone, and then a fire came out and burned him” (Shekalim, 15b).
Rabbi Hoshaya’s version of the story has elements similar to the story of Uza touching the aron hakodesh. It also reminds us of Nadav and Avihu’s death as told in our parasha.
According to Rabbi Hoshayah a kohen without any apparent sin was busy working for the Beit Hamikdash when something went very wrong and he touched something he shouldn’t have and he was burned to death. The story of this kohen’s death does not attribute any specific sin to him. He simply dies as a consequence of having come too close to the presence of the aron.
So too, Nadav and Avihu die without any explicit sin:
“Now Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu each took his fire pan, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered before Hashem an alien fire, which He had not commanded to them. And fire came forth from Hashem and consumed them; they died in the presence of Hashem. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘This is what Hashem meant when He said: Through those near to Me I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people.’ And Aaron was silent” (Vayikra, 10:1-3).
While the text does not spell out why Nadav and Avihu die, there are many different traditional ways to explain their death.
Here are some of the classic suggestions:
- The Talmud says: “Rabbi Eliezer says: The sons of Aaron died only because they issued a halakhic ruling bin front of Moses, their teacher? They expounded a verse to support their conclusion that in addition to the fire coming down from heavens they were also required to bring their own fire on the altar. It is stated in the Torah: ‘And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay the wood in order on the fire’ (Leviticus 1:7), which led them to say: Although fire descends from Heaven, it is nonetheless a mitzva to bring ordinary fire. Although they derived this from the verses, they were punished for ruling in the presence of their teacher” (Eruvin, 63a). According to this approach, Nadav and Avihu died as a result of the sin of acting disrespectfully towards their teacher by making a halachic ruling in his presence.
- Rashi cites a midrash that Nadav and Avihu died on account of the fact that they were drunk while they performed the service in the Mishkan (10:2). “Rabbi Ishmael said: they died because they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated by wine. You may know that this is so, because after their death he admonished those who survived that they should not enter when intoxicated by wine (vv. 8—9)…as is to be found in Leviticus Rabbah 12:1.”
- Another Talmud text suggests that they died because they intentionally chose not to have children. Indeed, the Torah does connect the death of Nadav and Avihu to their lack of children: “But Nadab and Abihu died by the will of the LORD, when they offered alien fire before the LORD in the wilderness of Sinai; and they left no sons” (Bamidbar 3:4). About this verse the Talmud states: “Abba Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A man who [intentionally] does not engage in procreation is liable to death” (Yevamot, 64a).
- An ancient Midrash suggests that their sin came from having crossed into an unauthorized area—the Holy of Holies. “They died inside (the Holy of Holies.] So how did Mishael and Eltzafan come close to carry out their bodies, if they were Levites and unable to enter this sacred location? They threw in a metal spear and dragged their bodies out” (Torat Kohanim). Only Aaron, their father, was allowed to go into the Holy of Holies, and only on Yom Kippur. The penalty for unauthorized entry into the Holy of Holies is death and the verse explicitly connects it to the death of Aaron’s children (see Vayikra, 16:1-2).
- Another suggestion of Rashi is that Nadav and Avihu did not actually sin. He writes that Moshe explains the deaths to Aaron by saying that he knew a human offering was necessary in order to sanctify the Mishkan. “Moses here said to Aaron: ‘My brother, Aaron! I knew that this House was to be sanctified by those who are beloved of the Omnipresent God and I thought it would be either through me or through thee; now I see that these (thy sons who have died) are greater than me and than thee!’” (Rashi, 10:3, citing Leviticus Rabbah 12 2). According to this approach, Nadav and Avihu did not die because of their sins, but because of their closeness with Hashem. Precisely because they were the greatest tzaddikim of their generation, Hashem elevated their souls to Heaven as a sacrificial offering. According to the Talmud, Aaron receives reward for accepting their deaths in silence (Zevachim, 115b).
- Ohr Hachayim suggests that Nadav and Avihu died as a punishment for Aaron’s sinful participation in the Golden Calf (Ohr Hachayim, 10:1). It is for this reason that the Torah links Aaron’s atonement to the death of Aaron’s sons (Vayikra, 16:1).
The list of possible sins and suggestions goes on and on. To see a thorough discussion of the topic, look here:
https://alhatorah.org/Why_Were_Nadav_and_Avihu_Killed/2#fn44
7. In contrast to all these answers, Rashbam takes a different approach and argues that their death was an accident. Thus, they did not die as a result of their own sins. His suggestion is simple and logical. Yet, after reading all of these other putative sins, it is very jarring to read. He writes: “At the time the heavenly fire emanated in order to consume the sacrificial meat on the altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, it consumed the two sons of Aaron on its way. This fire had meant to consume only the incense, but seeing that the sons of Aaron had been in its way it consumed them also and they died as a result (Vayikra, 10:2).
Rashbam’s refusal to accept Nadav and Avihu’s death as a result of a sin and instead calls it an accident, relates to a story we came across in our daf yomi studies this week (Shekalim, 14a).
The Talmud tells us about a righteous man named Nechunya who was responsible for digging wells for the pilgrims to use while traveling to worship in Jerusalem. He was skilled in knowing which rocks contained cold water and which hot water. He also knew how far these water holes extended. Tragically, even though Nechunya gave water to so many people, his own son died of thirst.
The Talmud sets out to explain how this could have possibly happened. How could it be that one who gave water to others could lose his own son to a death from a lack of water?
The first answer offered is that Nechunya must surely have had an old sin that had not yet been accounted for. Thus, Rabbi Ḥanina taught: “Whoever says that the Merciful One overlooks the punishment due to sinners, his intestines will be overlooked, i.e., cease functioning. The reason sinners often appear to go unpunished is rather that God extends His patience with evildoers to give them a chance to repent, but eventually He collects His due and punishes the wicked.” In other words, Hashem will punish us in the end, even if our sin was a very long time ago.
A second answer offered in the Talmud, suggests that it is precisely because Nechunya was so righteous that he suffered so harshly: “God is exacting with the righteous, who are close to Him and can be called His surroundings, up to a hairsbreadth. Even slight deviations from the proper path can elicit punishment.”
A third answer echoes the answer that Moshe told Aaron: God calls for the deaths of those closest to him: “Rabbi Yosi said: ‘And dreadful is He upon all of His surroundings’ (Psalms 89:8). This indicates that His dread is upon those close to Him, i.e., the righteous, more than upon those distant from Him, i.e., the sinful.”
The Talmud then cites a story which at first glance seems to support the story of Rabbi Nechunya, but in reality undermines it.
“Rabbi Ḥaggai said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: There was an incident involving a certain pious man who would dig pits, wells, and caves to collect water for passersby. Once his daughter was passing over a river for the purpose of marriage, and the river washed her away. And all the people came to console him, but he refused to accept their condolences. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair came to visit him to console him, but he refused to accept condolences even from Rabbi Pineḥas. Rabbi Pineḥas said to the people of that community: Is this your righteous man, who will not be consoled and accept God’s judgment? They said to him: Rabbi, he would perform such and such acts of righteousness, by supplying water, and yet such and such tragedy, the drowning of his daughter, occurred to him. Rabbi Pineḥas said: Is it possible that he honors his Creator with water, and yet his Creator strikes him with water? Immediately thereafter, a report spread throughout the city: The daughter of that righteous man has arrived, as she did not actually drown. Some say she grasped a branch and pulled herself out of the river, and some say an angel in the form of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair descended from heaven and rescued her” (Shekalim, 14a).
R. Pinchas b. Yair started off by criticizing the pious man for not accepting the words of comfort. One imagines that some of these words must have matched the classical answers of why Nadav and Avihu died. Presumably the “comforters” were suggesting that the pious man must have had an unknown sin, or his daughter must have had a sin, or perhaps, that the tragedy happened only because of the righteousness of the pious man.
But then something snapped. Rabbi Pinchas b. Yair heard that the daughter died via water --the same way that her father had generously helped so many others.
R. Pinchas b. Yair was no longer compliant. He now shouted: “This surely cannot be!”
Aaron’s sons had a similar fate. They also died in a manner similar to the way their father helped others. Their father worshipped through fire and they died through fire.
By telling us the story of R. Pinchas b. Yair I think the Talmud is telling us that when we read the story of Nadav and Avihu, it is ok for us to follow R. Pinchas’ lead.
Rather than grasp for apologetic answers, we too, can look up to the skies and exclaim: “This surely cannot be!”
R. Pinchas b. Yair was so righteous that he was able to reverse history and give us a happy ending to what would have been a tragic story.
None of us alive today can reach the spiritual level of R. Pinchas, we cannot reverse history. We cannot always achieve a happy ending. But his reaction allows us to realize that in the face of tragic news we do not have to grasp for answers like the ones that explain the deaths of Nadav and Avihu.
The response of R. Pinchas b. Yair makes space for all of us to also exclaim: “This surely cannot be!”
Shmuel Herzfeld
-------------------------
You can now watch a Youtube recording of Rabbi Herzfeld’s D'var Torah:
https://youtu.be/GcGVcd-L8aY
