Introduction to Parashat Hashavua
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Parashat Tazria-Metzora

Echoes of Tragedy – Part 2

By Rav Michael Hattin

INTRODUCTION

            Last week, we considered the account of the dedication of the Mishkan in Parashat Shemini.  We read of the special sacrifices of the eighth day presented by Aharon and his sons as well as by the people of Israel.  At the conclusion of those rites, Moshe and Aharon blessed the people and, in a sign of Divine favor, a heavenly fire descended and consumed the offerings:

A fire went forth from before God, it consumed the sacrifices upon the altar – the burnt offering and the fats – and when the people saw it they cried out, and prostrated themselves upon their faces…(9:24).

            The joy of the participants was, however, ephemeral, for a brief moment later, Nadav and Avihu the sons of Aharon presented an unauthorized offering of incense and were incinerated by God's flames:

The two sons of Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, each took their firepans, placed within them fire and upon that incense, and they offered before God an unfamiliar fire that He had not commanded them (to present).  A fire went forth from before God and consumed them, and they died before God (Vayikra 10:1-2).

A RELATED STORY

            Aharon their father, though bowed by the tragic turn of events, remained composed even as his sons' bodies were removed from the holy precincts and buried outside of the camp of Israel.  While the Torah itself kept silent concerning the exact indiscretion of the sons, and the early Rabbis and medieval commentaries adopted innumerable explanations to fill in the gap, we began to investigate what may be considered the earliest interpretation of the event.  That was of course the calamitous episode of the death of Uza, recounted in the second book of Samuel, chapter 6.  Recall that David, after his ascent to the throne of Israel, his conquest of Jerusalem and its designation as the capital of all of the tribes, attempted to relocate to the new city the Ark of the Covenant from its temporary abode at Kiryat Ye'arim in the Judean foothills.  But scarcely had the festive public procession began when Uza lay dead, felled by a "Divine wrath" kindled when he stretched forth his hand to secure the Ark of the Covenant as the oxen conveying its wagon stumbled and slipped:

They reached the threshing floor of Nachon, and Uza reached out for the Ark of the Lord and grasped it, for the oxen had slipped.  God's wrath was kindled against Uza and the Lord smote him there for the indiscretion, so that he died there with the Ark of the Lord.  David was upset about God's outburst ("PaRaTZ") against Uza, and he therefore called that place Peretz Uza, until this very day.  David feared God on that day, and he said "how shall the Ark of God come to me?"  David did not want to relocate the Ark of God to him to the city of David, and David instead diverted it to the house of Oved Edom the Gittite.  The Ark of God remained at the house of Oved Edom the Gittite for three months, and God blessed Oved Edom and his entire household.  It was told to David that God had blessed Oved Edom and all that was his because of the Ark of the Lord, so that David went and joyously brought up the Ark of the Lord from the house of Oved Edom to the city of David…(II Shemuel, 6:6-12).

            We noted at the time many general similarities between the circumstances surrounding the death of Nadav and Avihu and those that informed Uza's untimely demise.  In both narratives, the broader context concerned the challenge of forging disparate tribes into a unified nation.  In both stories, the centrality of the Ark of the Covenant and its relocation was highlighted, and in both accounts a national celebration of dedication was unexpectedly clouded by a catastrophe.  Drawing more specific parallels, we noted that both tragedies revolved around brothers (Nadav and Avihu vs. Uza and Achyo) who were integral to the process of the inauguration and who perished while the eyes of all of Israel are upon them.  Their respective fathers, namely Aharon in Parashat Shemini and Avinadav in the book of Shemuel, remained outside of the relevant narrative, peripheral to the account of their children's untimely death and detached or mute in their response.

            The most striking parallel, however, and the one that long ago inspired the designation of this section of the Prophets as the haftara for Parashat Shemini, surely concerned the inexplicability of the respective "crimes."  Why was it that Nadav and Avihu perished at all?  What was the nature of their indiscretion and of the "strange fire' that they presented?  Why was God's wrath kindled against them at just such a time, when all of Israel came together to celebrate the dedication of the building that is at the very core of the God-man encounter?  And why is it exactly that innocent Uza was struck down?  Did he not intend to preserve the Ark from harm by holding it steady even as its cart unexpectedly tottered?  Were his intentions not noble, his rash action an instinctive response that had only God's glory as its objective?  Should he have rather allowed the Ark to ignominiously fall to the ground?

            Of course, the anguish of the moment is amplified for the reader by David's response to the event.  Unlike Aharon who remained silent and accepted the harsh Divine judgment with resignation, David showed anger, disappointment and fear, even going so far as to name the scene of the crime in accordance with those sentiments:

David was upset about God's outburst ("PaRaTZ") against Uza, and he therefore called that place Peretz Uza, until this very day.  David feared God on that day, and he said "how shall the Ark of God come to me?"  David did not want to relocate the Ark of God to him to the city of David, and David instead diverted it to the house of Oved Edom the Gittite…

Note that the original Hebrew highlights the feelings of rage by using the same word to describe both God's outburst as well as David's: "God's wrath (vayiCHaR af) was kindled against Uza…David was upset (vayiCHaR le) about God's outburst ("PaRaTZ") against Uza…"

RASHI'S APPROACH AND ITS LIMITATIONS

            Like the cryptic narrative of Parashat Shemini before it, the story of Uza's demise has inspired many explanations and these resolve themselves into two main approaches.  According to Rashi (who bases himself upon earlier Rabbinic interpretations preserved in Talmud Bavli Tractate Sotah 35a), Uza should have realized that the Ark could, as it were, take care of itself.  After all, when the people of Israel crossed the River Jordan under the leadership of Yehoshua, the Ark parted the waters for them and then remained on the eastern side while they traversed.  After the last Israelite had made his way, the waters resumed their flow, stranding the Ark on the eastern bank.  But now – and here we introduce another Midrashic tradition –  the Ark "lifted up its bearers and carried itself across"!  Rashi therefore concludes that Uza, though he transgressed unwittingly, should have reasoned that "if the Ark could carry its bearers across the Jordan, all the more so could it carry itself!" (commentary to II Shemuel 6:7).  There was therefore no need for him to attempt to steady the Ark and grasping it thus constituted an unforgivable crime.

            While a later commentary also suggests a variation on Rashi's reading (see the explanation of Metzudat David by Rabbi David Altsheuler, 18^th century, Poland), it nevertheless remains a difficult proposition.  First of all we note that this interpretation depends upon non-contextual information.  That is to say that in order to explain the matter, we must resort to introducing material from elsewhere (i.e. Sefer Yehoshua chapters 3 and 4).  But the assumptions that we must introduce are also conjectural.  Nowhere does the text of Sefer Yehoshua say, though the narrative is otherwise unusually rich in details, that the Ark actually took flight at the event of the Jordan's crossing.  In fact, as the Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi, 13^th century, Provence) explains:

I am astonished at this interpretation.  Why did the Sages feel the need to explain the verses in this way?  I have otherwise explained them adequately…Surely such a miracle as the Ark and its bearers flying above the waters would not have been passed over in silence! (commentary to Sefer Yehoshua Chapter 4:11). 

            And most difficult of all, is it really reasonable that Uza should have been so severely punished only because he was a pious rationalist who was not willing to rely upon miraculous intervention?  Don't the Sages often caution us not to rely upon miracles but rather to forge ahead with human initiative even while we trust in God and recognize His decisive role in determining the outcome?

RADAK'S READING

            Many other commentaries advance a different reading that is contextual, rational, as well as persuasive.  This opposing interpretation, most eloquently stated by the Radak, is also first proposed by the early Rabbis (Talmud Bavli Tractate Sota 35a).  We begin by noting that the account of the Ark's relocation opens with a description of how it was conveyed from Kiryat Ye'arim to Jerusalem:

David gathered the choicest men in Israel, thirty thousand of them.  David and all of the people that were with him from Ba'ale Yehuda arose in order to bring up from there the Ark of the Lord, upon which was called the name of the God of Israel who dwells upon the cherubs.  THEY CAUSED THE ARK OF THE LORD TO RIDE UPON A NEW WAGON and they brought it up from the house of Avinadav upon the hill.  Uza and Achyo the sons of Avinadav were driving the new wagon.  They brought it up from the house of Avinadav that was upon the hill with the Ark of the Lord, and Achyo walked before the Ark…(Shemuel II:6:1-5).

While the provision of a new wagon does not seem at first glance to be particularly striking, it is at odds with what is clearly reported in Sefer BeMidbar concerning the transfer of the Ark during the wilderness journeys.  There, in Parashat BeMidbar (Chapter 4) it is clear that the Ark as well as the other holy vessels – the Table of the Showbread, the Menorah and the Golden Altar of incense – are to be conveyed by the Levitical family of Kehat by hand.  The staves with which each one of these vessels is provided (see Shemot 25:13-15; 26-28; 30:4-5) was for the specific purpose of allowing them to be carried upon the shoulder.  Significantly, this is made even more explicit later in the book of BeMidbar when the DEDICATION sacrifices of the tribal princes of Israel, which included six covered wagons and twelve oxen, are spelled out.  There, we learn that although the Levitical families of Gershon and Merari, who were charged with the conveyance of the Mishkan's heavier curtains and building elements respectively, were provided with these wagons to assist them in their duties, the clan of Kehat was not:

God spoke to Moshe saying: Take (the wagons and oxen) from them and let them be used for the service of the Tent of Meeting.  Give them to the Levites in accordance with their labors.  Moshe took the wagons and the oxen and he gave them to the Levites.  Two of the wagons and four of the oxen he gave to the Gershonites in accordance with their labors.  Four of the wagons and eight of the oxen he gave to the Merarites, in accordance with their labors, under the supervision of Itamar son of the Aharon the Kohen.  BUT HE DID NOT GIVE ANY TO THE CLAN OF KEHAT, BECAUSE THEY PERFORMED THE MOST HOLY LABORS, CONVEYING THE VESSELS UPON THEIR SHOULDERS (Bemidbar 7:4-9).

In other words, claims the Radak,

It was entirely inappropriate that the Ark should have been conveyed by wagon pulled by oxen.  Rather it should have been borne upon the shoulders of the Levites…the people of Israel who were familiar with the great sanctity of this object, as is stated concerning the clan of Kehat and their need to carry it upon their shoulders, therefore transgressed in this regard.  God thus emphasized the holiness of the Ark in two steps – by the stumbling of the oxen and by Uza's death…(commentary to 6:6).

REINFORCING THE RADAK'S ARGUMENT

            The Radak's argument is reinforced by the following points: firstly, we note that when David tries to move the Ark again, after it had been diverted to the house of Oved Edom the Gittite and had remained there for a period of three months, he is careful to do so through the agency of the Levites who carry it by hand:

It was told to David that God had blessed Oved Edom and all that was his because of the Ark of the Lord, so that David went and joyously brought up the Ark of the Lord from the house of Oved Edom to the city of David.  IT CAME TO PASS THAT WHEN THE BEARERS OF THE ARK OF THE LORD HAD TAKEN SIX STEPS THAT HE OFFERED AN OX AND A FATLING…(II Shemuel 6:12-13).

This is spelled out even more definitively in the lengthy parallel account preserved in I Divrei Ha-yamim 15:3-16:43.  The following is reported as David addresses the priests and the Levites who are about to undertake the conveyance of the Ark:

David summoned Tzadok and Evyatar the priests and the Levites – Uriel, Asayah, Yoel, Shema'ya, Eliel and Aminadav.  He said to them: you who are the chiefs of the Levitical clans must sanctify yourselves with your brethren in order to bring up the Ark of God the Lord of Israel to the place that I have prepared.  AT THE FIRST, YOU DID NOT CARRY IT AND GOD OUR LORD BURST OUT ("PaRaTZ") AGAINST US, BECAUSE WE DID NOT SEEK HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.  The priests and Levites sanctified themselves to carry up the Ark of God the Lord of Israel.  The Levites carried the Ark of the Lord just as Moshe had commanded by the word of God, by placing its staves upon their shoulders (I Divrei Ha-yamim 15:11-15).

Secondly, in the above passage David himself makes it clear that God had "burst out" against Israel the first time, a clear literary reference to the death of Uza ("David was upset about God's outburst ("PaRaTZ") against Uza, and he therefore called that place Peretz Uza, until this very day…" II Shemuel 6:8), precisely because the accepted "law" had been abrogated.  This law could not possibly have referred to Uza's unwitting indiscretion, since he acted instinctually and unintentionally.  The "seeking of God" implies deliberation and foresight and the failure to seek must therefore indicate willful abandonment.  Rather, the abrogation of the "law" in question must refer to the manner of the bearing of the Ark, just as Moshe's charge to the Levites is recalled at the end of section.

            Thirdly, and this is admittedly less definitive, we note that the only other time that the Ark of the Lord is conveyed upon a new wagon, it is by the Philistines who want to rid themselves of this lethal trophy.  It may be recalled that in the aftermath of Shilo's destruction recorded at the opening of the Book of Samuel, the Philistines carry off the Ark convinced that they have vanquished a material and concrete god much like their own.  But the God of Israel soon makes it clear that He is not to be confused with tangible, pagan deities.  Plague and pestilence now visit the Philistine towns and they hastily decide to return the Ark to its rightful guardians.  This they do by placing it upon a "new wagon" drawn by cattle that have never pulled the yoke (see I Shemuel 6) and releasing it in the direction of the Israelite countryside.  While David's choice to use a new wagon cannot be said to be inappropriate based entirely upon this passage, we are struck by the fact that the narratives draw the link.  The implication is that while other peoples may convey their gods on wagons and regard that as honorific, the conveyance of the throne of the God of Israel requires more reverence.

UZA'S CULPABILITY VS. DAVID'S

            We may therefore conclude that the true reason for Uza's untimely death had nothing to do with his particular action.  Reaching out for the Ark and seeking to steady it was entirely appropriate under the circumstances.  What made the act an unwitting crime on his part was the fact that the entire method of conveying the Ark was from the outset unacceptable.  Had it been conveyed appropriately, upon the stout shoulders of the sanctified Levites, we may surmise that the entire mishap would have been avoided.  As the Radak so trenchantly noted above, it is precisely the "stumbling of the oxen" that precipitates the tragedy because the Ark should not have been upon a wagon drawn by oxen to begin with!

            This reading of course casts Uza in an entirely different light.  He is the innocent victim in the story, as God-fearing individuals unfortunately often are.  Uza dies because someone else had miscalculated and that someone else is none other than David himself!  Thus it is that David is angry and disappointed in the aftermath of Uza's death and we may now perhaps appreciate that David is not upset at the inscrutability of God's mysterious and austere severity.  Rather, David is upset at himself for have caused the death of an innocent man.  This tragedy thus drives home another critical point beyond the particular cultic infraction of failing to convey the Ark correctly: the decisions of leaders impact upon their constituents even when those constituents are bystanders.  It cannot be otherwise.  The king of Israel must therefore exercise special responsibility, for his decisions will have far-reaching consequences for all of those around him, even when in the narrow sense he alone is to blame.

DAVID'S INNOVATION AND THE SONS OF AHARON

            And what of David's innovation?  Why would he have wanted to introduce a practice that was not sanctioned by precedent?  No doubt he surmised as follows: the Torah did not explicitly PROHIBIT the conveyance of the Ark by wagon and only discouraged it by implication.  Perhaps that was legislation limited to the wilderness wanderings when the Ark would have to be conveyed from place to place at regular intervals.  But to now bring it up to Jerusalem in order to install it in its new and more permanent location called for another method, something more grand and stately.  Let the Ark be carried aloft upon a new wagon, entirely set apart in the festive procession from the throng of Israelite pedestrians!  And (do we assume too much?) let that conveyance be an echo of the Philistines' own act, not in order to ape the pagan practices of the surrounding peoples, but rather in order to forcefully suggest that the wanderings of the Ark are over!  Let us "close the circle" of infamy, as it were, by restoring the Ark to its glory using the very same method that decades earlier had suggested the Ark's return from exile among the Philistines!

            If our analysis is correct, then the narrative of Uza's death becomes an important cautionary tale.  We break from explicit tradition, even when motivated by sincere and genuine intentions, at our own peril.  Our profound desire to glorify God and to elevate His service cannot come at the expense of His clearly defined laws.  And ultimately, it is the people of Israel who bear the brunt of those well-intentioned attempts to rewrite ritual.  Coupled with the account of Aharon's sons, a complete picture thus begins to emerge.  Their infraction was also one of well-intentioned, spontaneous innovation, as they attempted to serve God with unsanctioned fire.  After all, could the dedication of God's house fail to include a more human component now that all of His detailed provisions had been faithfully fulfilled?  But whereas their act did not have wider repercussions, David's decision did.  The individual who autonomously chooses his own way will impact only upon himself, but the leader who decides will naturally affect others as well.  Thus, we may understand that these two narratives – Nadav and Avihu on the one hand and the death of Uza on the other – are to be considered as mutually complementary, literarily linked so that we might appreciate the message.

            Next week, as I indicated last time, we will conclude the investigation of Bezalel's forebears. 

Shabbat Shalom