Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Mga Awit 78:63

אחרי מות, “after the death;” when we read in Kohelet 9,2: כטוב כחוטא, “as is the good man so is the sinner,” this is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who died only on account of having arrogated to themselves the right to preempt their elders Moses and Aaron in issuing a religious ruling. This is the meaning of the Talmud, tractate Yuma, folio 53, where Rabbi Eliezer explained the word חוטא as referring to their having done so. What precisely was the “new” ruling that they revealed? They interpreted the line: ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח, ”the sons of Aaron the priest placed fire (man made) on the altar;” (in addition to the fire that came down from the heaven). (Leviticus 1,7) Their sin was basically the same as that of Korach and his congregation, and that is why both were burned to death by heavenly fire. (Compare Tanchuma on our portion, section 1) Rabbi Acha son of Ze-ira adds (in the Tanchuma) that this is also the meaning of Job 37,1: אף לזאת יחרד לבי ויתר ממקומו, “also on account of this my heart quakes and leaps from its place;” he compares what happened to the staff of Aaron when it was placed inside the Sanctuary which sprouted almonds, whereas his sons when they entered the Sanctuary were burned to death. (Numbers 17,23) He also contrasts the fact that the Roman general Titus dared to enter the Holy of Holies, and he left it unharmed although surely he was less qualified to have entered such sacred grounds. He had entered in order to blaspheme, whereas the sons of Aaron had entered in order to offer incense to the Lord. (Tanchuma section 4 on our portion) [No wonder at the reaction of Job when he reflected on this phenomenon. Ed.] This phenomenon is also the subject of Psalms 78,63: בחורי אכלו אש ובתולותיו לא הוללו, “Fire consumed their young men and their maidens remained unwed.” The psalmist explains the reason that the sons of Aaron had to die as being that they had failed to get married. They had described themselves as so superior that no one was good enough to become their wives. They overestimated the value of having been born into such prominent families as their father and uncle. The result of their haughtiness was that they died without leaving behind any children. (Tanchuma section 6) In other words, no one remembered them.

Bahya writes. The Torah wrote “a man who lies with an unclean woman” [15:33], near the death of Aaron’s children. This shows what kind of sin the children of Aaron committed that led to their deaths. Some sages say that they brought strange fire into the Tabernacle. Some sages say that they drank wine and wanted to do the service in the Tabernacle. Some sages say that they issued halakhic rulings before their teacher, Moses. Some sages say that they did not want to take wives because they held themselves haughty. They said that there is nobody worthy to be their wife. Many important maidens were waiting for them and became old maids, as the verse says, “fire consumed their young men, and their maidens remained unwed” [Psalms, 78:63]. That is, the two young men, Nadav and Avihu were burned by a fire, because they did not marry the young maidens. The word “hulalu” means marriage. Some say that Nadav and Avihu at Mount Sinai gazed intently at the Shekhinah, and this is a great sin. The Holy One did not kill them at that time, as he did not want to mar the celebration of the Torah at that time. Some say that they were impure and went into the Tabernacle. That is to say, they did not wash their hands and their feet. Similarly, one who does not wash and goes into the Tabernacle to do the service is guilty. These are six opinions why Nadav and Avihu died. The Midrash writes. “Concerning her who is in menstrual infirmity” [15:33]. The Torah compares the impurity of Israel in the exile to a menstruating woman. She will soon again become pure with her immersion. So too are Israel in exile, when they are impure. The Holy One will again purify them and will have relations with them. Therefore, the verse does not compare their impurity to the impurity of a dead person. This is an eternal impurity and when there is a dead person in the house a priest cannot enter that house. However, a woman who is menstruating, the priest can certainly be with her in the same house, and may even sit on the same bench where she is sitting. So too is the Holy One with us in the exile, even when we are also impure in the exile, and also our impurities among the gentiles. The Holy One said: now in the exile you are impure. However, in the end I will purify you eternally, as the verse says, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your uncleanness and from all your fetishes” [Ezekiel, 36:25].⁹Bahya, Leviticus, 15:33.

According to Rabbi Yitzchak the elder, a Tossaphist, any priest who is not married is not to ascend the platform and raise his hands in pronouncing this blessing. I believe there is a sound basis for his opinion. The reason is that man is not complete without a wife, he lives a joyless existence and the blessing to be effective must emanate from someone filled with joy. As an incomplete human being [by choice? Ed.] he is neither the recipient of blessings nor a suitable dispenser of such. This [voluntary state of being single, Ed.] was enough reason for the sons of Aaron Nadav and Avihu to be deserving of the penalty they incurred. By not marrying they caused thousands of girls to remain unmarried, each one hoping they would be chosen as a wife for them and meanwhile refusing other offers of marriage. By the time Nadav and Avihu died these girls were too old to attract suitors so that they remained spinsters for the remainder of their lives. I have already mentioned in my commentary on Leviticus 15,33 that this is one of the six opinions offered by the sages who elaborated on the nature of these two priests’s sins. This is also what lies behind the words of Psalms 78,63: “fire consumed their young men and their maidens remained unwed.” The reason that the young men were burned by fire was that on their account so many girls remained unwed. According to that particular view Nadav and Avihu were killed by heavenly fire as they were not worthy to pronounce the blessing over the Jewish people having themselves remained remiss in the performance of such a basic commandment. When a priest conveys the kind of blessings which include the principle of enjoying married life with a spouse, how could he be suitable to do this unless he himself had set a suitable example?