פירוש על ויקרא 10:4

דד אהרן THE UNCLE OF AARON — Uzziel was Amram’s brother, as it is said (Exodus 6:18) “And the sons of Kehath were [Amram …. and Uzziel]”.

AND MOSES CALLED MISHAEL AND ELZAPHAN, THE SONS OF UZZIEL THE UNCLE OF AARON, AND SAID UNTO THEM: DRAW NEAR, CARRY YOUR BRETHREN FROM BEFORE THE SANCTUARY OUT OF THE CAMP. I have found written in the Torath Kohanim in the section of the consecration:⁷³Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini 38. “Rabbi Eliezer says: the sons of Aaron died outside [the Sanctuary], in a place where the Levites [Mishael and Elzaphan] were permitted to enter, as it is said, So they drew near, and carried them in their tunics.⁷⁴Verse 5. If so, why then does it say, and they died before the Eternal?⁷⁵Verse 2. It was an angel who smote them [Nadab and Abihu] and thrust them out of the Sanctuary [and they did not die until they were outside it]. Rabbi Akiba says: they died inside the Sanctuary, as it is said, and they died before the Eternal.⁷⁵Verse 2. If so, why does it say, So they drew near, and carried them in their tunics⁷⁴Verse 5. [since Levites are not permitted to enter the Sanctuary]? They put iron hooks on them, and dragged them and brought them out of the Sanctuary.” Thus far is the text of the Beraitha,⁵¹See Seder Vayikra Note 65. and the meaning thereof is as follows: Even though priests are also forbidden to enter the Sanctuary except at the time of Service,⁷⁶In other words, there is basically no difference between the priests and the Levites as far as the prohibition against a needless entry into the Sanctuary is concerned. If there is a need for it, such as removing an impure object from it, both are permitted [as explained further on in the text] to enter at any time. And if so, why the opinion of Rabbi Akiba that Mishael and Elzaphan put iron hooks on the bodies of Nadab and Abihu in order to remove them from the Sanctuary when they could have gone in directly and remove them? See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 66-67. this prohibition applies only if they enter it needlessly. But one may enter the Sanctuary in order to remove an uncleanness, or to make Temple repairs. For thus we were taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁷⁷Torath Kohanim, Emor 3:11. “I might think one is not permitted to enter the Sanctuary to make the beaten plates [for a covering of the golden altar, or for the Holy of Holies]; Scripture therefore says, ‘Only’ he shall not go in unto the Veil⁷⁸Further, 21:23. [the word ‘only’ denoting an exception to the general law]; such is their command: priests may go in there [at any time to make the above repairs]. If there are no priests present, Levites may enter. If there are no [ritually] pure ones [priests or Levites], impure ones may go in. If there are no unblemished ones, blemished ones may enter there.” Now on that day [when Nadab and Abihu died] there were no priests present [who could remove them from the Sanctuary where they had died], since [Aaron and his two remaining sons] were expressly commanded that they should not defile themselves for them.⁷⁹Verse 7. — So the question appears: Why did Mishael and Elzaphan have to resort to the use of iron hooks when they could have entered the Sanctuary? The answer is: since it was possible etc. But since it was possible to do it through dragging them out with iron hooks, [Mishael and Elzaphan] were not permitted to enter there. [Such is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba.] But Rabbi Eliezer, who is of the opinion [that an angel thrust Nadab and Abihu out of the Sanctuary, and they died outside, thinks] that since Scripture states of Mishael and Elzaphan, so they drew near,⁷⁴Verse 5. it was outside the Sanctuary [that they died], and therefore he does not say [as does Rabbi Akiba] that they dragged them outside in their tunics. The meaning of the expression in their tunics⁷⁴Verse 5. is that Nadab and Abihu were then dressed in the priestly garments. Moses thus commanded that they carry them out of the camp,⁷⁴Verse 5. and there they should strip them of their priestly garments, and clothe them in burial shrouds, and bury them, as was their custom with other people who died in the desert. After that they purified the sacred garments and they were used by the other priests.

ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן, “Moses called upon Mishael and Eltzafan, etc.“ Torat Kohanim derives from here that priests are forbidden to defile themselves ritually on dead bodies, seeing that neither Ittamar nor Eleazar, the brothers of the deceased, were allowed to perform burial rites on them. This statement raises questions seeing that the Torah specifically permitted priests who are brothers of the deceased to defile themselves, compare Leviticus In view of this, why were Eleazar and Ittamar not permitted to defile themselves here? We need to answer this by saying that even an ordinary priest, on the day when he has been consecrated, is treated as if he were a High Priest who is not allowed to defile himself for the sake of next of kin, except if a deceased has no one else who can attend to his interment, and this tragic death occurred on the very day that Eleazar and Ittamar had been anointed as priests. In light of this, we can now also understand why the Torah (verse 6) here commands both Aaron, Elezar, and Ittamar must not leave the hair of their head unshorn nor rend their garments as a sign of mourning even though elsewhere we do not know of such a restriction applying to ordinary priests. Nachmanides writes that what took place on that occasion was dictated by extraordinary circumstances. There is no question that the High Priest is enjoined not to leave the hair of his head unshorn and not to rend his clothing as a sign of mourning, as he is not allowed to leave the precincts of the Temple during a period when he is supposed to perform his duties in the Temple, in order to attend the funeral of his next of kin. By doing so, he would desecrate the sanctity of the Temple. The reason is that his appointment, i.e. appointment to his position as High Priest, is a round the clock position seven days a week, and this is demonstrated by the Torah demanding that even when in a state of aninut, the period between the death of a near relative and the burial of that relative, a period when performance of the מצוות, commandments is temporarily suspended, he must not abandon his post in the Temple. Ordinary priests, by contrast, are not allowed to perform their duties in the Temple when in such a state of pre-burial mourning for their relatives, the state we call aninut. Seeing that their duties in the Temple are temporarily suspended, they are obligated to attend to the needs of the relative about to be buried. This, obviously, requires that they defile themselves ritually in the process of attending to the needs of the deceased. In this special situation the Torah instructed more distant relatives, uncles, to perform these rites for Nadav and Avihu, This is the meaning of verse 6:ואחיכם כל בית ישראל יבכו את השרפה, “your brethren the whole house of Israel are to weep for the conflagration which Hashem has ignited.” Moses warned Eleazar and Ittamar concerning their ritual status on this exceptional occasion. The dominating consideration on this day was to maximise the joy over G’d’s Shechinah finally having become manifest again among the camp, for the first time since the sin of the golden calf. The sons of Aaron therefore were forbidden to take a leave of absence from their duties in the Tabernacle on pain of death. It is possible that Moses received a direct command from G’d for this special occasion, and did not improvise, even though the Torah did not see fit to record this in our text, which, after all, contains only material the relevance of which transcends time and space. He may also have learned what to do from the more general statement in Leviticus 8,35: ושמרתם את משמרת ה' ולא תמותו, “you shall observe the ordinances of the Lord so that you will not die.” It was clear to Moses that what are referred to there as משמרת ה' also applied to this eighth day of the inaugural offerings. Clearly, it had not been a secret for G’d that the day would come during these eight days when two sons of Aaron would be in the state of aninut, for their two older brothers. In spite of having anticipated this, G’d had formulated at this time already a statute according to which these sons of Aaron were not to leave the holy precincts, even temporarily, were not to observe the rites appropriate for brothers who are in such a state of aninut. They were not to observe any rite that reflected to the outside that they were in a state of mourning. At this particular time, on this special date, they were subject to the same rules as was the High Priest himself. It is even possible that during all the years when Eleazar and Ittamar performed their duties as priests, before they became physically too weak to do so, they conducted themselves exactly as if they had both been Hugh Priests, a good reason being the fact that they had both been anointed with the special oil, just as had their father, but not like their sons who were priests from birth and did not need anointing.

בני עזיאל דוד אהרן, “the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron.” Rashi explains that Uzziel had been a brother of Amram as it is written (Exodus 6,18) “and the sons of Kehat were: “Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron, and Uzziel.” Seeing that this is spelled out in the written Torah, what did Rashi contribute with his commentary? Rashi concentrates on the words “an uncle of Aaron” in our verse. Seeing that we were aware of this genealogy we also knew that Uzziel was an uncle of Aaron. Why then did the Torah provide this well-known information? The reason the Torah added these words was to teach us that the uncle and nephew were alike not only in their hereditary genes but in their acquired characteristics, their מדות טובות. Just as Aaron was known as a lover of peace and harmony, so his uncle before him had been known for these qualities.

Uziel was the brother of Amram. [Rashi mentions this so that you would not erroneously] explain that דוד is referring to the husband of his aunt, as in Parshas Acharei Mos (18:14), where we find that דודתך is referring to the wife of your uncle. Alternatively, this is so that we will not err by saying that “Aharon’s uncle” refers to Mishael and Elzafan. Therefore, Rashi explains: Uziel was the brother of Amram.

ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן, Torat Kohanim claims that it is clear from here that the brothers of the deceased, being priests, were not allowed to bury him, i.e. to ritually defile themselves on account of the tragedy. This statement is most puzzling, as this is nothing new, and we know from Leviticus 21,1 that priests must not defile themselves. Seeing that both Elazar and Ittamar were not High Priests, why would they be forbidden to bury their brothers seeing that they belonged to the seven closest relatives on whose account they are permitted to defile themselves in such a situation? We must therefore assume that what the author of Torat Kohanim had in mind was that on days when ordinary priests have been appointed to perform service in the Temple, they are considered on the same level of sanctity as a High Priest, and on such days they must not defile themselves even in order to bury one of the seven closest relatives. This is also the opinion of the author of b’chor shor, in his commentary on verse 6, i.e. ראשיכם אל תפרעו, “let not your hair on your head grow loose.” The reason why this rule was revealed on that day was that on that day the brothers of Nadav and Avihu had been appointed to perform duties in the Tabernacle, so that they had become subject to the restrictions applying to their father the High Priest. On ordinary days, ordinary priests do not have to observe the restriction of not letting their hair grow loose. [At the time in question there had been only five priests, Aaron and his four sons. Ed.] Our author feels that the words: כי שמן משחת קודש עליהם, “for the holy anointing oil is upon you,” in the verse following, reinforces the commentary by the author of b’chor shor.

Aharon’s uncle [dod]. According to the plain meaning the expression dod connotes friendship, and the verse explains why Moshe called the sons of Uziel instead of the sons of Yitzhar, for example. This was because Moshe knew that some of Aharon’s relatives were jealous of Aharon’s glory, and he was afraid they would seem to be happy at his misfortune. Therefore Moshe called the sons of Uziel because he knew Uziel loved Aharon and was close to him, and Uziel would be pained over Aharon’s pain. Uziel’s sons, as well, were very humble; we see Mishael’s great humility from the fact that his younger brother became the Nasi of Kehos and he did not protest at all, and Elzafan is written without a yud, which shows that he was humble in his own selfappraisal, as is known to those who interpret names.

ויאמר אליהם קרבו, “he said to them (Aaron’s great nephews) come forward;” he had to reassure them that they did not have to fear any interference by G-d. (Pessikta zutrata).

שאו את אחיכם וגו׳ CARRY YOUR BRETHREN etc. — as a man who says to his fellow: Remove the corpse from before the bride in order not to disturb the joy.

קרבו, “approach!” Torat Kohanim quotes two contradictory opinions, one of which holds that the sons of Aaron died without the boundaries of the holy precincts, whereas the other opinion claims that they died within those boundaries and their bodies had to be dragged out by rope or something similar, in order not to violate the stern prohibition for a non priest to cross that boundary. The first opinion is based on the word קרבו in our verse that suggests that there was no ritual impediment to Eltzafan and Mishael taking hold of these bodies. The other opinion bases itself on the Torah describing the death of these two sons of Aaron as having occurred לפני ה', “in the presence of the Shechinah,” an expression referring to holy precincts. According to this latter opinion, the bodies were either dragged by rope, or by a long wooden lance, at any rate both expressions in the Torah are not irreconcilable. When it comes to the need to avoid ritual contamination through a dead body, there are no different rules for Levites, such as Eltzafan and Mishael, and for ordinary Israelites. Both are charged with removing ritual impurity from the holy precincts especially when no priest is available inside. According to the view that these two brothers died within the holy precincts, their bodies conferred ritual impurity on the entire Tabernacle and its contents, and in the absence of priests, anyone could have removed these bodies. However, seeing that it could be done without more ritual impurity being incurred by anyone, this is the preferable method. If anyone had had to incur ritual impurity on that account, he would have required seven days of purification rites with sprinkling of water containing the ash of the red heifer both on the third and on the seventh day during these seven days. The Tabernacle would have had to undergo a similar purification rite involving immersion in a ritual bath, mikveh, seeing that linen shrouds, sheets etc., are all subject to ritual contamination with the dead. Seeing that we do not hear about service in the Tabernacle having been interrupted at that time, nor that the Tabernacle was taken apart as a result of the death of the two sons of Aaron, we may assume that the deaths did not occur within the holy precincts. On the other hand, seeing that the rule for the Tabernacle was על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו, that the people were to both encamp and start moving only at the express command of G’d, this implies that no other occurrence would demand the folding and dismantling of the Tabernacle, i.e. that it was immune to the laws of ritual purity and impurity.

So as not to disturb. Otherwise, it should say: Come closer and carry your brothers and bury them. Why does it say, “from the presence of the Sanctuary”? Rather: “Take away ... [so as not to disturb].” Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe not call Elozor and Isomor? It is explicit in Scripture (21:2): “for his brother” he may become impure. To this, Rashi answers that this taking out was not for the sake of burial. Rather: “from the presence of the Sanctuary” — “As a man who says...” Therefore, Elozor and Isomor were not permitted to become impure. And this is even though in fact Elozor and Isomor did not become impure even for the sake of burial from the strength of a Divine command (v. 7): “From the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall not go forth” (Nachalas Yaakov).