Parshat Shmini

Aharon's Two Other Sons

The day was meant to be Ahraon's finest hour; the day that the Mishkan would be consecrated and "the glory of the Lord would appear" (VaYikra 9:6). It would also show that Aharon was truly the one chosen by God to be His High Priest and that that he had been forgiven for the role he played in the apostasy of the Golden Calf.

These events occur, but Aharon pays a tragic price when two of his sons, Nadav and Avihu place an unauthorized fire on the fire pans and "died before the Lord" (ibid 10:2).

Moshe wants Aharon and his two remaining sons, Eleazar and Itamar, to carry on with day's ritual as if nothing had happened: "Moshe said to Aharon and to Eleazar and to Itamar, his sons, "Do not leave your heads unshorn, and do not rend your garments…" Take the meal offering that is left over from the Lord's fire offerings, and eat it as unleavened loaves beside the altar… (ibid 6 & 12-15).

Eleazar and Itamar, however, find it impossible to complete the ritual as Moshe had proscribed: "Moses thoroughly investigated concerning the sin offering he goat, and behold, it had been burnt! So he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's surviving sons, saying, Why did you not eat the sin offering in the holy place? …so you should have surely eaten it within holy [precincts], as I commanded (ibid 16-18)."

Up until now, even at the death of his two sons, Aharon had been silent. However, when his surviving two sons are reproached by Moshe for not completing the ritual, i.e. eating the sin offerings, he finally speaks up:

"But today, did they offer up their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord? But [if tragic events] like these had befallen me, and if I had eaten a sin offering today, would it have pleased the Lord?" (ibid 19).

Essentially, Aharon rationalizes their actions saying that they are grief stricken and so God would not be pleased with them continuing with the normal fashion and so they burned the sin offerings instead of eating them, as the eating of the sin offering would have been a joyous act.

How does Moshe react to this defense? Let us first look at he Hebrew and then examine two different translations: וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו

Translation 1: Moshe listened and it was good in his eyes.

This is the standard translation, that Moshe accepted Aharon's response. However, this is strange for surely Moshe understood this argument beforehand and that is why he stressed to them the importance that despite their grief, they must continue with the ritual.

Therefore, we can give a different translation.

Translation 2: Moshe listened [and responded] "It would have been good in His eyes".

Aharon asks under these circumstances whether it would have been good in God's eyes to continue as normal. Moshe responds that indeed, it would have been.

Which interpretation is correct? We can never know. However, it is only when we study the text in its Hebrew original that we can fully appreciate the different dimensions that it has to offer.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat Shemini, entitled: "Aharon's Shame" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2008/03/parshat-shmini-aharons-shame-its-eighth.html

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Shemini, entitled: "Aharon's Four Sons" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007/04/parshat-shemini-aharons-four-sons.html

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Shemini, entitled: "How They Died" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/parshat-shemini-how-they-died-parshat.html

Parshat Shemini

Aharon's Four Sons

Aharon had two sets of sons: The older two, Nadav and Avihu; and the younger two, Elazar and Itamar.

Both sets do something wrong in this week's parsha. In the first instance, Nadav and Avihu die and Aharon is silent, in the second, Aharon rersponds to Moshe's rebuke, ans the sons go unpunished.

Let us examine the two cases.

In the first case Nadav and Avihu take coals and incense which: "which He had not commanded them. Fire went out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord" (VaYikra 10: 1-2). Moshe confronts Aharon with a somewhat cryptic statement "and Aharon was silent" (ibid 3).

In the second instance, Moshe had previously warned the priests not make the same mistake as Nadav and Avihu. They were to to be very careful in the service of God, "to distinguish between holy and profane and between unclean and clean" (ibid 10). They were to stick rigidly to the letter of the law so that they would not die, when working in the Mishkan, a very dangerous place. Moshe told them that the "whole house of Israel would mourn" their loss, but that they were not to mourn and to continue with the worship (ibid 6).

Moshe is therefore furious (notice the use of the root קצפ to describe Moshe's anger) when he "investigated concerning the sin offering he goat", i.e. the sin offering of the people, that "it had been burnt" as opposed to being eaten (ibid 16).

Moshe is concerned that as a result of not doing Israel's sins offering properly, the people had not attained atonement for previous sins. With the spirit of God now resting on the Mishkan and residing amongst the people, there was a real danger that the anger of the Lord would burn (notice again the root קצפ in passuk 6) and literally, burn the people as he had burnt Nadav and Avihu.

In this instance however, Aharon is not silent, defending them from Moshe's anger. Aharon explains that he (and his sons) had previously sacrificed his own personal sin offering (the calf – see ibid 9:2 and 8-11) and tragic "events such as these happened to me. Is it then fitting in the eyes of the Lord for me to eat the sin offering today?!" (ibid 10:19).

It is not easy to understand Aharon's defence, but examining it will perhaps help us explain why the first set of sons did wrong and were punished and in the second case the other set did wrong and were not punished?

Suffice it to say that Elazar and Itamar's concern seems to be that of the people, unlike Nadav and Avihu who seem to operated totally on their own initiative. Elazar and Itamar and Aharon seem to be concerned that their sin offering was not accepted, for how then could have Nadav and Avihu died. Their deaths occurred despite the fact that they had just offered their own personal sin offering. How was it therefore possible for them to eat the sin offering of the people and be the vehicle for Israel's forgiveness, when it seems that their own sin offering went unanswered? Surely it was therefore, better for them to burn the whole sin offering. Let God partake of the people sin's offering, for they, Elazar and Itamar, were unworthy.

Last years' Sedra Short on Parshat Shemini, entitled: "How They Died" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html