Parshat Shemini:The Uncle of Aharon

Tragedy has struck. Aharon’s two older sons are dead, victims of their own efforts in bringing a ‘strange fire’ into the Mishkan. Now their corpses must be removed from a room only their father and brothers may enter, yet these very people are the ones who are prevented from entering because they have a job to do, and responsibilities which can not fall by the wayside – the inevitable outcome of their becoming “tameh” through contact with the deceased.

And so Mishael and Eltzafan are called in. They are described to us as “The sons of Uziel, uncle of Aharon.”

Being students of the Torah, we know the relationship of all these people from Shmot 6:18 and 6:22.

So why does the Torah add the unnecessary words, “Uncle of Aharon?”

Rashi tells us nothing new when he explains that, “Uziel was the brother of Amram.” Rabbenu Bachaye even wonders why Rashi bothered to tell us this – we know it from Shmot 6. Rabbenu Bachaye explains what he believes was Rashi’s line of thinking based in a Midrashic idea (Midrash Agadah, Yalkut Shimoni, etc) that the Torah is coming to teach us how Aharon had inherited his qualities of being a “lover and pursuer of peace” from his Uncle Uziel. Malbim similarly explains that he was his beloved uncle who had similar qualities in general, and that there is a unique kind of filial attachment that relatives who are very similar have for one another.

I find this difficult to accept as an answer – because it doesn’t explain Rashi very well. If the meaning was to suggest that Aharon was more like his uncle than his father, why didn’t Rashi just say that? Perhaps Rashi was simply noting that this verse supports information we had been given earlier.

Rabbi Ovadiah MiBartenura suggests that one might mistakenly think that Aharon’s Uncle Uziel was a different Uziel married to a sister of Amram. In this manner, it is being made clear that Mishael and Eltzafan, sons of the brother of Amram, are Levites. The rule is made clear that if no Kohanim are available to remove the corpses, Levites could enter the Mishkan, but not regular Israelites.

Furthermore, the Sha”kh explains, their connection to Aharon through their father is significant for other reasons. “There is no one other than you two who can get them; they were sgan-kohanim and you are sgan-levites (sgan = Vice). You were both at the same level in your field. Eltzafan was to be the prince of the Levites (Bamidbar 3:30). Just as Aharon and Uziel were equated, so were their respective sons equated (even though Mishael and Eltzafan were Aharon’s first cousins and of his generation, it is the father-son equation which parallels them with Nadav and Avihu).”

The Netziv adds that Mishael and Eltzafan were modest and humble in their own way. The special kinship between Aharon and Uziel allowed for this branch of the family to take care of the tragic unfoldings on Aharon’s behalf. There were, after all, some members of the family who were jealous of Aharon (think Korach), and might have viewed his tragedy as their opportunity to one-up him, to gloat in his loss. But this was not the way, nor the concern, of the family of Uziel, who were family-people through and through.

It is important to note that Aharon is often used in the Torah as a family connection. When Miriam dances after the splitting of the sea, she is described as “the sister of Aharon.” Pinchas is described a number of times as “Pinchas son of Elazar, son of Aharon.”

There are three approaches as to why Miriam is described as “the sister of Aharon”: either because she prophesied first of all her siblings – even before Aharon (Otzar Midrashim), she prophesied when she was only the sister of Aharon – about the birth of Moshe (Talmud Megillah 14a), or because he gave his life for her (Midrash Sechel Tov Beshalach 15).

Being connected to Aharon, whose reputation is so outstanding, is a tribute to Miriam, a tribute to Pinchas, a tribute to Elazar (when he is Kohen Gadol), and continues to be a tribute to all the Kohanim, whom we continue to call Bnei Aharon.