Of Grief Public and Private: Moses and Aaron Face the Unimaginable

Of Grief Public and Private: Moses and Aaron Face the Unimaginable Rabbi Shai Held No sooner are Aaron's sons ordained than two of them die at the terrifying hand of God. The story is terse, laconic and profoundly disturbing. But it raises fascinating and crucially important questions about mourning and devastation, about (often misguided) attempts to console, and about the ways leadership roles can (legitimately?) limit public expressions of grief and sorrow. It is a harrowing scene. Now Aaron s sons Nadav and Avihu each took his fire pan, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered alien fire before the Lord, which [the Lord] had not commanded them. And fire came forth from the Lord and consumed them; thus they died before the Lord (Leviticus 10:1-2). The text is opaque: It is No sooner are Aaron's sons ordained than two of them die at the terrifying hand of God. not clear precisely what Aaron s sons have done to so incur the wrath of God. Presumably both Moses and Aaron are stunned. Then Moses said to Aaron, This is what the Lord meant when He said: 1 Through 1 Commentators have long scrambled to find a moment when God had said this, or something like it. For a brief but useful summary, cf. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1:16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (1991), p. 600. Milgrom follows the view that dibber (said) refers to the immediate present, i.e., that this is the occasion which prompts God s declaration. 1

those who are near to Me 2 I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified (10:3). Moses appears to be saying that God will demonstrate God s holiness through the priests, whether by their cooperation with [God] or, as in the present instance, by punishing them. 3 How does Aaron respond? The Torah gives us only two words: Va-yidom Aharon meaning, according to the conventional translation, Aaron was silent (10:3). Moses instructs Aaron s cousins to remove the bodies from the sanctuary, and then instructs Aaron and his two remaining sons not to engage in the usual rituals of mourning: Do not bare your heads 4 and do not rend your clothes, lest you die and anger strike the whole community. Moses adds one further note of instruction: Do not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, lest you die, for the Lord s anointing oil is upon you (10:6-7). What are we to make of Aaron s silence? What is he thinking and feeling upon learning of the death of his sons? And how are we to understand Moses explanation of God s actions and the instructions he gives? 2 Karov, one who is near, can be an official title for a courtier who is permitted to approach the king. Cf. Esther 1:14 and Ezekiel 23:12. It thus may be an actual title that the priests had, and not just a description. Cf., for example, Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus (1989), p. 59; and Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, pp. 600-601. 3 Roy Gane, Leviticus, Numbers (2004), p. 188. Baruch Levine explains that according to Leviticus, priests who adhere to the regulations of their office and protect the purity of the sanctuary sanctify God; and, in turn, the sanctuary is favored by God s presence. When, as happened in this case, they flout God s will, [God] exercises [God s] punitive power, compelling all to recognize [God s] authority. Levine, Leviticus, p. 59. Levine helpfully contrasts Leviticus 22:31-32 (God is sanctified by Israel observing God s commandments) with Numbers 20:12-13 (God is sanctified by punishing Moses and Aaron). 4 Or perhaps: Do not dishevel your hair. 2

Following a midrash, 5 Rashi (1040-1105) takes Aaron s silence as a sign of his great faith: Aaron does not utter so much as a word of protest or Rashi takes Aaron s silence as a sign of his great faith. complaint. On this interpretation, Aaron was rewarded for his silence: In the very next passage, God addresses him exclusively, without Moses playing any role (10:8-11). More expansively, R. Eliezer Lipman Lichtenstein (1848-1896) notes that the Torah describes Aaron s response with the word va-yidom rather than va-yishtok. Although the two terms appear to be synonymous 6 both convey that the person kept silent R. Lichtenstein finds an important difference in nuance between them: Whereas va-yishtok (the word not used here) suggests abstaining from speaking, weeping, groaning, or any other outward manifestation, va-yidom connotes inner peace and calmness of spirit. The Torah describes Aaron with this latter term, Lichtenstein argues, in order to emphasize that his heart was at peace and his spirit calm even internally; he did not question God s ways, but accepted God s decree (Shem Olam to Leviticus 10:3). 7 According to R. Lichtenstein, then, Aaron s heroism is manifest in his serene response to the (seemingly inexplicable) death of his sons. Yet one wonders whether such an interpretation purchases Aaron s heroism at the cost of his humanity. Two of his sons lie dead before him. Even if Aaron refuses to question God s ways or sees no need to do so why total silence? 5 Leviticus Rabbah 12:2. 6 Onkelos (c. 35-120) in fact renders the Hebrew va-yidom with the Aramaic ve-shatik. 7 Cf., similarly, R. Naphtali Hirz Wessely (1725-1805), Biur to Leviticus 10:3. 3

Would shedding a tear or emitting a cry really have constituted a crime against God or betrayed less-than-perfect faith? R. Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) offers a dramatically different and to my mind at least, a much more human understanding of Aaron s silence. Aaron s heart turned to lifeless stone. He did not weep and mourn like a bereaved father, nor did he accept Moses attempts to console him, for his soul had left him and he was speechless. In other words, Aaron s silence was a function of shock rather than piety. Aaron is presented not as a hero of faith but simply as a human being, a father stunned into numbness by the unthinkable the sudden, completely unexpected death of two of his children. He does not speak because there are no words. But what if Aaron wasn t silent at all? Bible scholar Baruch Levine suggests that there are actually two separate meanings to the Biblical Hebrew root d-m-m. The first, more common meaning is to be still and as we have seen, this is how biblical commentators have almost always understood the term va-yidom when applied to Aaron: And Aaron was silent. The second, less familiar meaning Baruch Levine suggests that there are actually two separate meanings to the Biblical Hebrew root d-m-m. is to mourn, to moan. The two meanings are obviously incompatible, and yet, fascinatingly as in our story because they are usually homophonous and homographic, it is often difficult to discern 4

which one is intended. 8 Levine argues that Leviticus 10:3 says nothing about Aaron keeping silent. On the contrary, the second meaning of d-m-m is intended: And Aaron mourned [or moaned]. On Levine s interpretation, the Torah tells us that Aaron reacted in the customary manner; he moaned or wailed and was about to initiate formal mourning and lamentation for his two lost sons. 9 The whole story now appears in a very different and more subtle light: Aaron moans and cries out because the agony of a father upon the loss of his children is irrepressible. But Moses forbids him and his remaining sons from initiating formal rites of mourning, i.e. bearing their heads and rending their garments. Instead, he assures them, the people will mourn on their behalf (10:6). How are we to understand Moses conduct? Faced with the sudden, shocking, and seemingly inexplicable death of Aaron s two sons, Moses is at a loss. He turns to his Faced with the sudden, shocking, and seemingly inexplicable death of Aaron s two sons, Moses is at a loss. elder brother and offers a theological explanation: Through those who are near to Me I will show Myself holy, and before all the people I will be glorified. Aaron s response is extremely telling: He goes right on mourning. It is easy to imagine oneself in Moses shoes: Faced with 8 Baruch A. Levine. Silence, Sound, and the Phenomenology of Mourning in Biblical Israel, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 22 (1993), pp. 89-106; passages cited are on pp. 90, 91. As examples of the second meaning d-m-m as to mourn, moan, Levine adduces Isaiah 23:1-2; Lamentations 2:10; Job 2:11-13; and perhaps Amos 5:13. Cf. also Psalm 4:5, Job 4:12-16, 1 Kings 19:12. Levine also notes that we must remain sensitive to plays on words, to the phenomenon of double entendre. It is quite possible that in certain instances, [the biblical text] intended that the reader associate both sets of meanings homophonously in a given verse (91-92). In his earlier (1989) commentary on Leviticus, Levine had accepted the traditional translation, explaining that Aaron accepted God s harsh judgment and did not cry out or complain at his painful loss. Levine, Leviticus, p. 60. 9 Levine, The Phenomenology of Mourning. p. 89. Cf. also p. 106. 5

the horror of sudden death, confronted by the anxiety that everything he has built will now crumble, haunted by an internal voice that cannot help but wonder why God would do this Moses responds by re-affirming a theological truth he believes can help him (and Aaron) make sense of this unendurable turn of events. But Aaron will have none of it. Implicitly, he reminds Moses and us that there are moments when theological explanations, whether compelling on their own terms or not, simply have no place. When a father stares into the There are moments when theological explanations, whether compelling on their own terms or not, simply have no place. abyss and sees two of his children lying dead before him, the first response is not theology but grief. Moses may need to assure himself that his world has not fully fallen apart, but in sharing his explanation of Nadav and Avihu s death, he fails to make adequate space for Aaron s utter devastation. So Aaron, rightly, ignores Moses words. Emotionally at least, his moaning is far wiser than Moses speech. 10 Especially when death is untimely, or sudden, or traumatic, people often visit shiva homes and end up (usually unconsciously) trying to assuage their own anxieties instead of comforting or just sitting with the mourners. Halakhah tries to preclude that by instituting silence as the mode we embrace when we enter a house of mourning. We speak when spoken to; we do not impose our own theological musings on people who are beset with grief. The 10 Even if we assume that va-yidom Aharon means that Aaron was silent, it is possible that his silence represents not acquiescence to Moses words but rejection of them. He is silent because he cannot bring himself to engage in a theological discussion when all he wants to do is wail for his children. For an interpretation along similar lines, cf. Shmuel Goldin, Unlocking the Torah Text: An In-Depth Journey into the Weekly Parshah Vayikra (2010), pp. 67-68. 6

Talmudic Sage R. Papa declares: The merit of attending a house of mourning lies in the silence observed (BT, Berakhot 6b); the book of Job poignantly describes Job s friends initial reaction to his grief: They sat with him on the ground for seven days and seven nights. None spoke a word to him for they saw how very great was his suffering (Job 2:13). Accordingly, R. Yohanan teaches that comforters are not permitted to say a word until the mourners open conversation (BT, Mo ed Katan 28b). 11 But Moses does not wait for Aaron to speak first; instead, as we have seen, he imposes a theological interpretation on the shocking turn of events long before it is time. How can A tremendous amount is at stake in this moment, both for Moses and for the people of Israel. we understand Moses seemingly unfeeling response? Aaron and his sons have just been ordained and God s presence has appeared at the newly consecrated mishkan (tabernacle); the founding and establishment of the divine service appears to be going according to plan. But then, in the very next verse, even before the sacrifices have been eaten, everything seems to fall apart. Nadav and Avihu behave inappropriately, with grave and terrifying consequences. For Moses, it must feel like deja vu. A tremendous amount is at stake in this moment, both for Moses and for the people of Israel. At Mount Sinai, God and Israel had pledged their commitment to one another. But as soon as Moses tarried on the mountain, the people had turned to idolatry (Exodus 32:1-6). Moses was enraged and distraught. Here, now, the next stage of Israel s life with God is about to begin and again, things go badly awry. Moses (and God s) plans are disrupted just as they are being actualized; order is again undermined 11 This is, in fact, the accepted position in Jewish law. Cf. R. Joseph Caro (1488-1575), Shulkhan Arukh, YD 376:1. 7

by chaos and this time, the violation may well be unclear even to Moses, making for a doubly terrifying scene. 12 It is easy to condemn people who speak in haste; it is usually far harder to understand them. Circumstances may sometimes require public leaders to delay or suspend their mourning. But what of Moses prohibiting Aaron and his sons from mourning publicly? Why can t the family grieve as they choose? As priests, Aaron and his sons are entrusted with the work of affirming and preserving life. By virtue of their consecration, the priests and their vestments belong to the sacred sphere that was to be dissociated from death and corpse contamination. 13 Under normal circumstances, Aaron s two remaining sons would have been permitted to participate in burying and mourning their brothers (Leviticus 21:1-2). But here, as disaster seems poised to undo the very founding of the mishkan service, they are held to the strict standard of holiness normally associated exclusively with the High Priest (21:10-12). 14 It may be tempting to condemn Moses instructions, but I wonder whether that reflects, in part, just how secularized our society has become. We would all likely agree that circumstances may sometimes require public leaders to delay or suspend their mourning. If America s security were in grave peril, we would expect the President to do what was needed to attend to the situation at hand, even if delaying his or her mourning exacted a psychological toll. And that is what this situation is like: Moses is frightened and uncertain 12 Frank H. Gorman, Jr., Leviticus: Divine Presence and Community (1997), p. 63. 13 Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, p. 189. 14 Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, p. 191. Cf. also the comments of Nahmanides to Leviticus 10:6 as well as Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 607. 8

about Israel s future; the very heart of its life, the reason for its being its covenant with God may be in grave danger. So Moses expects the priests to put that reality first. As Bible scholar Roy Gane puts it, Moses intense reaction reflects the severity of the situation. 15 I have distinguished between Moses attempt to explain Aaron s tragedy, which, though understandable, is problematic, and his dispensing orders for managing the crisis, which is his responsibility as Israel s leader and all the more so in times of crisis. The lessons here are subtle: The impulse to explain other people s tragedies often stems from our own fear of chaos; it is almost always crucial to resist the urge to share those explanations with them. But sometimes people find themselves in positions of great responsibility; part of what those roles entails is that we cannot always give free and unhindered public expression to our grief. Shabbat Shalom. See Shai Held s other divrei Torah on parashat Shemini: 5774 Is Vegetarianism a Biblical Ideal? Sign up to receive Rabbi Shai Held s weekly divrei Torah direct to your inbox: www.mechonhadar.org/shaiheld 15 Gane, Leviticus, Numbers, p. 192. 9