Shabbat Parashat Bamidbar - 5784

Shabbat Parashat Bamidbar - 5784

Rabbi Hal Miller

  Nadav and Avihu died before God when they offered an alien fire before God in the

  wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children, but Elazar and Itamar ministered in

  the presence of Aharon their father. [Bamidbar 3:4]

What does the verse mean that "Elazar and Itamar ministered in the presence of Aharon

their father"? The Gemora in Eruvin [62b-63a] indicates a severe chastisement for one

who renders a decision in the presence of his teacher. In fact, it refers to Nadav and

Avihu as an example of this problem, "R'Eliezer said, the sons of Aharon did not die until

they rendered a legal decision in the presence of Moshe their teacher." What is the

difference between what Nadav and Avihu did and what Elazar and Itamar did?

Sforno finds that "they had been given authority by God to substitute for their father in the

Sanctuary if the need arose." He notes that "during the lifetime of Aharon his sons had

already been anointed." However that would have applied to Nadav and Avihu as well.

But he also says that Nadav and Avihu died because they rendered a decision "in the

presence of Moshe their teacher". Rashi, based on Vayikra Rabbah [20:6], says the same.

Perhaps the definition of "in the presence of" will help us. The Hebrew word here is al-pnei.

In Eruvin, R'Eliezer uses the word b'fanav. The difference is the 'al' versus the 'b' prefixes.

The 'b' would indicate "in the face of", and the 'al' would mean "to his face". This could be

explained that Nadav and Avihu were aggressively or intentionally doing something they knew

they should not be doing, while Elazar and Itamar came first to Aharon for permission.

Rashi says al-pnei means in the lifetime of Aharon, but that also applies to his other sons.

Ramban differs in that Elazar and Itamar were anointed as Kohanim Gedolim, as was Aharon,

therefore they were permitted to rule as needed. But this also applied to Nadav and Avihu.

In Vayikra [10:8], we see that after the deaths of the two older brothers, God warned Aharon

and his remaining two sons not to drink wine before coming to serve in the Sanctuary. Some

commentators note this as explaining the reason Nadav and Avihu died. It could be tied to

our situation, that someone who drank would not be eligible to issue a ruling in the presence

of his teacher, but someone who is otherwise qualified to do so and who did not drink, would

be allowed to make such a ruling. Had Nadav and Avihu not had wine, they might not have

died despite making a decision before their teachers.

Another difference is the idea of rendering a decision versus performing holy service. Although

many point to our verses to learn that one may not render a decision in the presence of his

teacher, however that may be interpreted, perhaps here we are looking at an act of service

that is not the rendering of a halachic decision. Nadav and Avihu decided that this additional

fire was proper, but Elazar and Itamar are being given permission to carry on with the regular

procedures for the Kohanim. The latter were not rendering a decision, and for these sons of

Aharon only, it was allowed. No future Kohanim would have this same position of being

anointed by direction of God.