Shabbat Parashat Mishpatim - 5782

Shabbat Parashat Mishpatim - 5782

Rabbi Hal Miller Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel ascended. [Shemot 24:9] In speaking of who is going partway up Mount Sinai, the Torah lists Aharon and his two older sons accompanying Moshe. Why only these two? What happened to Elazar and Itamar? In next week's portion, verse 28:1 we see all four sons listed as God commands the consecration of Kohanim. Why not here? The Gemora (Rosh Hashanah 25a) asks why the sons were named but not all the elders, and explains that it teaches that three, here being Aharon and the two sons, may stand in as a beit din in place of Moshe for the coming generations. But this does not explain why these two were named and not the other two sons. Rav Hirsch seems to suggest that the phrase could have read, Aharon and an elite of the people. If so, combined with that Gemora, any two would do. He then says that later, the Kohen Gadol was appointed by the Sanhedrin, who were the successors to Moshe's role. This is confusing since Nadav and Avihu never succeeded Aharon in that role, whereas Elazar did eventually. Perhaps we could understand that Nadav and Avihu were joining Moshe in appointing Aharon, but the Sanhedrin role was to follow Moshe, not to include him. In any event, it does not tell us why Elazar and Itamar were excluded. Rav Moshe Feinstein says it is noteworthy that the command to Aharon to light the Menorah precedes his sanctification as Kohen Gadol, and that it was in the merit of his observing this mitzvah that he was eventually sanctified. This may be, but does not explain why two of his sons, who never became Kohen Gadol, were included here, and the one that did eventually become so was not included here. Talelei Oros on 28:1 asks an interesting question. Why is it necessary there for the Torah to mention the names of Aharon's sons at all? The beginning of that verse says "Aharon and his sons", then proceeds to name them. But we already know the names of all four sons. He answers that it is to specifically include Nadav in the sanctification. At the calf incident, the religious leadership role was removed from the firstborn of Israel and given to the Levites. Although Nadav did not fall into that sin, the removal was universal, so Nadav had to be resanctified as a Kohen in order to serve as God's minister. Listing all four was necessary to show Nadav remained the same as the other three. This helps us understand a comment of Ramban that in 28:1 the sons were named because Aharon had already been sanctified, and now each one of the sons had to be separately sanctified. It also may help us in our verse, that since the sons were not being sanctified at this point, there was no need to name all four. If so, then the Gemora's comment about needing a three-man beit din could be our answer, that Moshe, Nadav and Avihu together appointed Aharon. Needing only two in addition to Moshe, and those two sons being the elder two, we can see why only they were listed here. The remaining question is why a three-man beit din would include Moshe, since the beit din of the future was intended to replace Moshe. For this we might say that the three were not Moshe, Nadav and Avihu, rather Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, accompanying Moshe. If so, we ask what it is that this beit din was needed for if not to appoint Aharon. Perhaps, as representatives of the people, two were needed to see and record for them what comes in the following verse [24:10], "They saw the God of Israel and under His feet was what had the form of a sapphire brick and was like the appearance of the heavens in purity." On this, Rashi says that Nadav and Avihu deserved death for seeing God, but that God put off the punishment until the well- known incident to come, in order to not impact the rejoicing of the nation now. If Rashi is right, then Nadav and Avihu should be classed as witnesses, not a beit din, to testify to the people, and their other brothers were not needed for this, nor destined to die on this account.