When There are No Words — Kendell Pinkney
In our parasha, Shemini, we encounter the peculiar story of a pair of priestly brothers, Nadav and Abihu. These two brothers, both the eldest sons of the high priest Aaron, for some unknown reason feel compelled to make an impromptu incense offering to Hashem, only to find themselves greeted with the consuming fire of G-d’s burning anger. I mean this quite literally. According to our text, after the brothers placed incense in their fire-pans and offered “alien fire,” G-d reciprocated by sending out a fire that “consumed,” or, more literally, “ate them.” This is a terrifying scene. It is graphic and immense. In the wake of this event, we are even more stunned with both Moses and Aaron’s responses. Moses immediately moves forward, warning other members of the priesthood not to observe the usual rituals of mourning. Meanwhile, Aaron, instead of giving into the primal urge to grieve as a parent who has just lost two of his precious children, simply remains silent.
What exactly is going on in this scene? How can we make sense of such an event?
Various generations of rabbis do their best to offer up explanations to explain the logic of Hashem’s anger. Ibn Ezra, for instance, foregrounds the fact that Hashem neither requested this offering, nor did Hashem approve of the use of “alien fire.” But what exactly is “alien fire?” Rashi doesn’t say. According to the Da’at Zekenim, a Torah commentary put together by a sundry group of medieval French-German sages, Nadav and Abihu had been warned not to make such an offering of “alien fire” before. Interestingly, in making this claim, they cite a verse that says nothing about “alien fire,” (Exodus 30:9) rather, it prohibits strange mixtures of incense. Everywhere we look, we find ourselves at a loss to explain both G-d’s anger and Nadav and Abihu’s deaths in a satisfactory manner. In short, it defies logic.
So often when we approach the “difficult texts” of our cherished traditions, we either skip over the parts that do not resonate with us, overcommit to dogmatically problematic ideologies promoted by the text, or find ways to make the text say what we desire of it. All of these responses are understandable. After all, we are human, and the traditions that guide our lives carry such profound meaning that the cognitive dissonance of confronting the potentially “unethical” in our sacred literature can just feel too overwhelming. That being said, what if a response of sheer horror and senselessness is exactly the kind of response that our text encourages?
In his dense, but masterful article on postmodernism and biblical interpretation, the eminent Bible scholar, Ed Greenstein posits an alternative reading of the Nadav and Abihu story. By leaning into the linguistic and grammatical ambiguities within the text (e.g. how is it that the brothers were consumed whole by fire and yet carried out by their tunics? Wouldn’t their tunics be burnt up?), as well as the indeterminability of what was so “alien” about the fire offered to G-d, Greenstein suggests something radical; namely, that the “search for a reason [for the deaths of Nadav and Abihu] reflects a drive for order within the interpreter. The presupposition that there is a reason not only motivates the search...it necessarily posits, or superimposes, the structure of sin and punishment on the story.” And this assumption of rationality and sin and punishment makes it nearly impossible to consider the irrationality of the deaths of Nadav and Abihu.
As we step into this Shabbat just one day beyond the day where we commemorate yom hashoa - the day where we remember the deaths of the all our Ashkenazi siblings and/or ancestors who perished in the Holocaust - we are also reminded of the irrationality of the deaths of all of our siblings and ancestors of color who perished due to hateful and systemic violence so close to home. There is no “making sense” of this. There is no transcendent story that can flip these losses into something good. And it is here that Aaron’s response to the deaths of his sons makes so much sense. As the great Sephardic philosopher and Bible commentator, Abarbanel, reflected over half a millennia ago:
[Upon losing his sons, Aaron’s] heart became like an inanimate rock, and he did not raise his voice in crying or eulogy, as would a father for [his] children; he also did not accept condolences from Moses. For he had no breath left in him, nor did he have any speech.
Certain losses leave us without words - without breath. My prayer for us this shabbat is that as we reflect on the tremendous impact of the losses of this past year and beyond, and their attendant breathlessness, may we also find moments of stillness and quiet groundedness where we can hold their memories for a blessing.
Kendell Pinkney is the Rabbinic Fellow at Ammud: The Jews of Color Torah Academy
Texts Cited
ויקרא י׳:א׳-ז׳
וַיִּקְח֣וּ בְנֵֽי־אַ֠הֲרֹן נָדָ֨ב וַאֲבִיה֜וּא אִ֣ישׁ מַחְתָּת֗וֹ וַיִּתְּנ֤וּ בָהֵן֙ אֵ֔שׁ וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ עָלֶ֖יהָ קְטֹ֑רֶת וַיַּקְרִ֜בוּ לִפְנֵ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֵ֣שׁ זָרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹ֦א צִוָּ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃
וַתֵּ֥צֵא אֵ֛שׁ מִלִּפְנֵ֥י יְהוָ֖ה וַתֹּ֣אכַל אוֹתָ֑ם וַיָּמֻ֖תוּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהוָֽה׃
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן הוּא֩ אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֨ר יְהוָ֤ה ׀ לֵאמֹר֙ בִּקְרֹבַ֣י אֶקָּדֵ֔שׁ וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כָל־הָעָ֖ם אֶכָּבֵ֑ד וַיִּדֹּ֖ם אַהֲרֹֽן׃
וַיִּקְרָ֣א מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֶל־מִֽישָׁאֵל֙ וְאֶ֣ל אֶלְצָפָ֔ן בְּנֵ֥י עֻזִּיאֵ֖ל דֹּ֣ד אַהֲרֹ֑ן וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵהֶ֗ם קִ֠רְב֞וּ שְׂא֤וּ אֶת־אֲחֵיכֶם֙ מֵאֵ֣ת פְּנֵי־הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ אֶל־מִח֖וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶֽה׃
וַֽיִּקְרְב֗וּ וַיִּשָּׂאֻם֙ בְּכֻתֳּנֹתָ֔ם אֶל־מִח֖וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֑ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר מֹשֶֽׁה׃
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֣ה אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֡ן וּלְאֶלְעָזָר֩ וּלְאִֽיתָמָ֨ר ׀ בָּנָ֜יו רָֽאשֵׁיכֶ֥ם אַל־תִּפְרָ֣עוּ ׀ וּבִגְדֵיכֶ֤ם לֹֽא־תִפְרֹ֙מוּ֙ וְלֹ֣א תָמֻ֔תוּ וְעַ֥ל כָּל־הָעֵדָ֖ה יִקְצֹ֑ף וַאֲחֵיכֶם֙ כָּל־בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יִבְכּוּ֙ אֶת־הַשְּׂרֵפָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֖ר שָׂרַ֥ף יְהוָֽה׃
וּמִפֶּתַח֩ אֹ֨הֶל מוֹעֵ֜ד לֹ֤א תֵֽצְאוּ֙ פֶּן־תָּמֻ֔תוּ כִּי־שֶׁ֛מֶן מִשְׁחַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה עֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וַֽיַּעֲשׂ֖וּ כִּדְבַ֥ר מֹשֶֽׁה׃ (פ)
Leviticus 10:1-7
Now Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu each took his fire pan, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered before the LORD alien fire, which He had not enjoined upon them.
And fire came forth from the LORD and consumed them; thus they died before the LORD.
Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD meant when He said: Through those near to Me I show Myself holy, And gain glory before all the people.” And Aaron was silent.
Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said to them, “Come forward and carry your kinsmen away from the front of the sanctuary to a place outside the camp.”
They came forward and carried them out of the camp by their tunics, as Moses had ordered.
And Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not bare your heads and do not rend your clothes, lest you die and anger strike the whole community. But your kinsmen, all the house of Israel, shall bewail the burning that the LORD has wrought.
And so do not go outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, lest you die, for the LORD’s anointing oil is upon you.” And they did as Moses had bidden.
Ibn Ezra on Lev. 10.1
וטעם אשר לא צוה אותם. שמדעתם עשו ולא בצווי להקטיר קטורת גם באש זרה:
WHICH HE HAD NOT COMMANDED THEM. They acted on their own and were not commanded to burn incense and certainly not to employ a strange fire.
Daat Zekenim on Lev. 10.1
אש זרה אשר לא צוה אותם. כלו' כבר הזהיר עליהם שלא לעשות כדכתיב ולא תעלו אש זרה וגם לא צוה אותם שלא התירה עתה להם לפי שעה כי לפעמים הקב"ה אוסר דבר ומתירו לפי שעה לגדל שמו בגוים כמו שמצינו באליהו בהר הכרמל שהקריב בבמה על פי הדבור בשעת איסור הבמות. וכן נוכל לפרש לשרוף את בניה' באש אשר לא צויתי וגו':
STRANGE FIRE WHICH HE HAD NOT COMMANDED THEM (TO USE): The Torah implies that they had already been warned not to use such fire as is written in Exodus 30:9: [Actually, in that verse, the prohibition is not to offer strange fire, but not to use a strange mixture of incense. Ed.] The reason the Torah uses the unusual formulation “which he had not commanded them,” instead of ”which He had forbidden them,” is that on occasion, in exceptional circumstances, G–d does permit something which is ordinarily prohibited. The Torah underlines that this was not such an occasion.
Abarbanel on Aaron’s response to Nadav and Abihu’s death in Lev. 10.3
'. אבל פירוש וידום אהרן הוא שנהפך לבו והיה כאבן דומם ולא נשא קולו בבכי ובמספד כאבל אב על בנים. גם לא קבל תנחומים ממשה כי לא נותרה בו נשמה והדבור אין בו...
His heart became like an inanimate (domem) rock, and he did not raise his voice in crying or eulogy, as would a father for [his] children; he also did not accept condolences from Moses. For he had no breath left in him, nor did he have any speech...
