One State Solution

The first half of this week’s Sedra is devoted to “Yom HaShemini”, the eighth and final day of the Yimei HaMiluim. Thiswas of course a momentous day, marked by a special Avdoah, as it marked the beginning of Hashra’as Hashechina amongst Klal Yisroel. As we know, however, the Simcha of the moment was marred by grave tragedy: the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. It is somewhat difficult to imagine how a day of such elation could be so quickly turned into one of loss, but perhaps the lesson of the Yom Hashemini can be found by examining it as a whole—the high points as well as the unfortunate ones.

The Torah is very clear about the actions of the Bnei Aron: they took their Machtos, placed fire into them and brought Ketores into the Mishkan, thereby committing a fatal error: “Vayakrivu Lifnei Hahsem Esh Zarah Asher Lo Tziva Osam”, they brought an Esh Zarah that they had not received a Tzivuy for. As a result, and Esh came down from Shamayim and they were killed. What is not immediately obvious from the Pessukim is their motivation for doing so.

After their death, Moshe Rabbeinu refers to Nadav and Avihu using the term “B’Krovei Ekadesh”, and Chazal tell us that Moshe knew that the Mishkan would somehow be Mekudash through someone close to Hashem, but thought that would be either himself or Aron. Now that he saw that the Kiddush Hashem came through the Bnei Aron, he came to a surprising conclusion: “Hem Gedolim Mimeni U’Mimcha”, they are greater than both of us. It seems, then, that the Cheshbon that Nadav and Avihu made in bringing the Esh Zarah was one that is worth understanding, as it was a decision taken by two Tzaddkim who undoubtedly had the best of intentions.

There are myriad Divrei Chazal and Meforshim that offer explanations as to the actions of the Bnei Aron, but there is one Medrash that seems to offer a rather simple approach. Earlier in the Parsha the Pessukim tell us that Moshe and Aron entered the Mishkan and it was only when they emerged that the climax of the day occurred: “Vayera Kavod Hashem El Kol HaAm.” Rashi there cites Chazal who tell us that Moshe and Aron went into the Mishkan to bring Ketores, and this was the final act that brought Hashraas Hashechina. The Medrash Hagadol tells us that when Nadav and Avihu saw this, they wished to replicate the effect: they thought that they too could bring the Ketores thereby bringing an additional level of Hashraas Hashechina. While we understand that they were mistaken in their thought process, it is important to understand where their mistake lay—why did they think that they could bring Ketores, and why were they in fact wrong?

In order to explain the actions of Nadav and Avihu, let us turn to one of the Pessukim that discusses the aftermath of their Petirah.

Although there is a Machlokes in the Medrash as to where exactly Nadav and Avihu perished—in the Kodesh Hakdoshim or outside—there was a clear problem: their remains, which were Tamei, were now in the Mishkan, which represented the epitome of Taharah. Moshe Rabbeinu therefore turned to Mishael and Eltzafan and asked them to enter the Mishkan and remove the bodies, which they of course did.

In telling us who Moshe turned to, however, the Torah uses an interesting terminology: “Vayikra Moseh El Mishael V’el Eltzafon Bnei Uziel Dod Aron.” In a short comment, Rashi explains that Uziel was a brother of Amram, and cites a source for this relationship: a Passuk in Sefer Shemos that identifies both Uziel and Amram as sons of Kehas ben Levi. Rabbeinu Bachya asks a simple question on this Rashi: if the Passuk earlier tells us that Uziel and Amram were brothers, why then does the Passuk here need to tell us that Uziel was Dod Aron—would we not be able to deduce this from the earlier Passuk? The truth is, however, that the term “Dod Aron” itself is noteworthy for two reasons. First, the Torah does not usually identify people as cousins or nephews, and so there must be a specific reason why the Passuk does so here. Second, any uncle of Aron would be an uncle to Moshe as well, so why does the Torah specifically refer to Aron in this case?

In order to answer these questions, let us look at a Medrash cited by Rabbeinu Bachya to explain the words of Rashi.

The Toras Kohanim tells us that Aron and Uziel had a shared connection: just as Aron’s defining Middah was “Ohev Shalom V’Rodef Shalom”, so to Uziel was one to whom Shalom was very important. The Torah therefore tells us that Uziel was “Dod Aron” to let us know about this shared Middah.

Obviously this Medrash answers all of our questions: although we would have known that Uziel was Aron’s uncle based on the Passuk in Shemos, and of course Uziel was Moshe’s uncle as well, and even though the Torah doesn’t generally identify people as uncles or nephews, here the Torah refers to Dod Aron specifically to teach us that Uziel was a Rodef Shalom.

As is often the case, however, the next question is very simple: why? Why did the Torah, here of all places, in the midst of describing what could only have been a horrific and harrowing scene, wish to teach us about the Shalom of Uziel? In addition, the Torah isn’t even talking about Uziel directly, but his sons Mishael and Eltzafon—why mention Uziel’s pursuit of Shalom at all? How is the Maalah of “Rodef Shalom” as embodied by Uziel connected to both Misas Bnei Aron and his sons’ roles in the aftermath?

It seems that in order to understand the Toras Kohanim, it would be helpful to better define the Middah of Rodef Shalom.

The Mishna in this week’s Perek of Pirkei Avos tells us: “Hillel Omer Hevei Mitalmidav Shel Aron Ohev Shalom V’Rodef Shalom Ohev Es Habrios Umekarvan LaTorah.” The Mishna seems be telling us a number of traits of Aron Hakohen: he was one who loved, shalom and pursued it, who loved his others and tried to bring them closer to Torah. The Maharal, in his Pirush on Avos called Derech Hachaim explains that these are not multiple Middos, but are in fact all connected to one another.

The Kohen Gadol, explains the Maharal, has a unique ability to be M’Ached Klal Yisroel, to unite us as one by highlighting our distinction from those around us. The Umos HaOlam have multiple gods and therefore multiple priests and intermediaries to help them serve those “deities”, Klal Yisroel has one Hashem Echad and therefore requires only one Kohen Gadol to serve. The Kohen Gadol is therefore a symbol of the fact that we are one nation, with one Torah, one Mishkan and one Hashem. In addition, by being Makriv Korbanos on behalf of Klal Yisroel the Kohen gadol ahs the power to bring them closer to Hashem and his Torah.

The Maharal explains that Aron Hakohen understood this Tafkid of the Kohen Gadol and exuded these Middos. Because he realized that as Kohen Gadol he was a Meached, one who unites Am Yisroel, he went out of his way to bring Shalom in other ways, because this was his central purpose: to create a nation unified in its Avodas Hashem. This showed his Ahavas Habrios, because one would not expend such effort if he did not love his fellow man, which in turn brought people close to Hashem.

We see then, that the Middah of Ohev Shalom V’Rodef Shalom that Aron personified was directly related to the role of the Kohen Gadol: Ichud Klal Yisroel. As the Kohen Hagadol M’Echav, Aron understood that was directly responsible for uniting Klal Yisroel, and spared no effort in pursing this goal even outside the Mishkan.

With this in mind, let us turn back to the Bnei Aron

As we mentioned, the decision that Nadav and Avihu made was based on the purest of intentions: they wished to bring added Hashraas Hashechina to Klal Yisroel through the Ketores, just as Moshe and Aron had. Perhaps, however, their mistake was in understanding their role on that day.

The Da’as Zekenim, in discussing why Elazar and Issamar could not remove their brothers’ remains, brings a number of proofs that on the day of his Meshicha a Kohen Hedyot has the Halachos of a Kohen Gadol. That is, on that day all of Aron’s sons had the Din of Kohanim Gedolim though they were of course each a Kohen Hedyot.

When Nadav and Avihu saw that Moshe and Aron were able to bring Hashras Hashechina with the Ketores, they too wished to serve Klal Yisroel in that way, to bring additional Kedusha. On that day, however, they were on the level of the Kohen Gadol, and their focus should have been on Ichud Klal Yisroel: one Avodah for one Nation. Rather than trying to add an additional Avodah, even with the best of intentions, they should have realized that their Tafkid was to highlight the Achdus of Klal Yisroel and how this sets us apart from the Umos HaOlam, thereby bringing their fellow Yidden closer to Hashem. Earlier in the Parsha, the Torah identifies the sons of Aron as “Bnei Aron Nadav V’Avihu” rather than writing “Nadav V’Avihu Bnei Aron” which is the more common form. Chazal explain that the Passuk is written this way to show us that Nadav and Avihu were not “Notel Eitzah” from their father: they did not ask him what to do and did not follow in his ways. Nadav and Avihu had the pure intentions, but they did not properly follow in the footsteps of their father, the consummate “Ohev Shalom V’Rodef Shalom” and therefore made a mistake, missing an opportunity to maximize their role as Kohanim Gedolim on that day.

That is the message that Moshe was sending by summoning Mishael and Eltzafon. Uziel was an “Ohev Shalom V’Rodef Shalom” of the same caliber as his illustrious nephew, meaning that he too wished to be M’Ached Klal Yisroel not just for the sake of peace, but as a way to bring them closer to Hashem. His sons are identified as “Mishael V’Eltzafon Bnei Uziel Dod Aron” meaning that they too walked on this path—they were truly sons of their father and were “Notel Eitzah” from him. Moshe therefore summoned them, to illustrate that the mistake made by Nadav and Avihu, on their lofty Madreiga, was tied to the Mesorah of “Ohev Shalom V’Rodef Shalom” as embodied by the actions not only of Aron Hakohen, but also of Uziel and his sons.

There are a great many lessons to be learned from the story of Nadav V’Avidu but perhaps this approach brings forth yet another. There are times when we think that we have identified a path to growth in our own Avodas Hashem or that of the greater Klal, but we may fail to consider how this approach fits the ultimate goals of Ribbuy Kvod Shamayim. We must always realize that there is an ultimate Tafkid and our own actions must be attuned toward those goals, and not necessarily our own. It is only by consulting those with clearer vision, honed by years of Limud Hatorah and D’veykus B’Hashem, that we can hope to identify the proper path toward the increase in Hashras Hashechina for which we strive.