 |
“The connection between the haftarah and the parashah derives from the striking symmetry of the two readings. The parashah first celebrates the dedication of the tabernacle (Lev. 9) and then records the deaths of Nadab and Abihu when they brought ‘alien fire’ into the shrine (Lev. 10:1-2). Correspondingly, the haftarah initially describes the joyful transport of the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:2-5) and then notes the abrupt death of Uzza when he reached out to grasp the holy object (vv. 6-7)” (Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, Relation of the Haftarah to the Parashah, 644).
The sin of Nadab and Abihu is described as follows: “Now Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu each took his fire pan, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered before the Lord alien fire, which He had not enjoined upon them. And fire came forth from the Lord and consumed them; thus they died at the instance of the Lord.” (Lev. 10:1-2). Regarding Uzza’s transgression, we are told: “But when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out for the Ark of God and grasped it, for the oxen had stumbled. The Lord was incensed at Uzzah. And God struck him down on the spot for his indiscretion, and he died there beside the Ark of God” (2 Sam. 6-7).
The Keli Yakar (R. Ephraim Solomon b. Aaron of Leczyca, 1550-1619) summarized the various midrashic attempts to find the reason for the deaths of Nadab and Abihu:
There have been many opinions as to the nature of this sin. In the Yalkut [Yalkut Shimoni 524], R. Mani concludes that it was for entering [the tabernacle] drunk with wine, and for entering without washing their hands and feet, and some say that they were without clothing, i.e. the priestly robe, and some say it was because they had no sons, and some say that they had not married, and some say that they declared the law in the presence of Moses their teacher, and some say that they would go about saying “When will these two old men die and you and I will govern”, and some say it was caused by the calf that Aaron made…
These explanations are all derived from some interpretation of a verse. For example, the view that they were drunk derives from the fact that later in the chapter we read: “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting” (Lev. 10:9). The idea that it was because they had no sons comes from the verse, “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” Num. 3:4).
As opposed to these explanations, Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) writes: “and the reason for asher lo tziva otam (“which He had not enjoined upon them”) is that they acted of their own accord.” In other words, their sin was that they had done something that they had not been commanded to do. As opposed to this, R. Jacob b. Asher “Baal Haturim” (1270-1340) explained: “It should not be understood that He did not command them to bring alien fire, and He also did not command them not to bring it, but rather, that He had given them a command of ‘not’, as in [the verse] ‘turning to the worship of other gods and bowing down to them, to the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, something I never commanded (asher lo tziviti)” (Deut. 17:3). Thus, it would seem that while Ibn Ezra reads “that he had enjoined them not”, Baal Haturim reads “that he had enjoined them not”.
1. Why does the midrash seek reasons in other verses rather than sufficing with the verse itself? Does the verse that describes the deaths of Nadab and Abihu actually provide a specific reason? What is the meaning of “alien fire”? Can we understand the nature of the transgression by looking back to the description of fire in the last verse of the previous chapter: “Fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat parts on the altar. And all the people saw, and shouted, and fell on their faces” (9:24)?
2. According to Ibn Ezra, the sin of Nadab and Abihu was that they acted on their own initiative, without any concern for their intention. Does this description also hold with regard to Uzza? According to this approach, is conduct forbidden unless specifically commanded? Why does Baal Haturim emphasize that the correct reading of the verse implies the existence of a prohibition? Does this explanation also hold in the case of Uzza? Is there an implied prohibition there, as well?
3. One of the distinguishing characteristics of a democratic society is that an individual is free to do anything that is not expressly forbidden. As opposed to this, in a democratic society, governmental authorities – “public figures” – are forbidden to do anything that they have not been authorized to do. Is it possible to draw a parallel between these approaches and the views of Ibn Ezra and Baal Haturim? Which approach might be more appropriate to the case of Nadab and Abihu and which to that of Uzza?
| |
