Bemidbar: "Chayav Mita" as Non-Literal

I didn’t get to post this last week, so here it is.

In the sidra of Bemidbar, we hear of Nadav and Avihu’s death. Bemidbar 3:4.

וַיָּ֣מׇת נָדָ֣ב וַאֲבִיה֣וּא לִפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֡ה בְּֽהַקְרִבָם֩ אֵ֨שׁ זָרָ֜ה לִפְנֵ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ בְּמִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וּבָנִ֖ים לֹא־הָי֣וּ לָהֶ֑ם וַיְכַהֵ֤ן אֶלְעָזָר֙ וְאִ֣יתָמָ֔ר עַל־פְּנֵ֖י אַהֲרֹ֥ן אֲבִיהֶֽם׃ {פ}

But Nadab and Abihu died by the will of יהוה, when they offered alien fire before יהוה in the wilderness of Sinai; and they left no sons. So it was Eleazar and Ithamar who served as priests in the lifetime of their father Aaron.

Of course, that isn’t the primary pasuk about their deaths. This is part of a genealogical section. The initial description of their deaths was in Vayikra 10:1. Anyway, on our verse in Bemidbar, Torah Temima quotes a gemara in Yevamot 64a:

אַבָּא חָנָן אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: חַיָּיב מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבָנִים לֹא הָיוּ לָהֶם״, הָא הָיוּ לָהֶם בָּנִים — לֹא מֵתוּ.

Abba Ḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: A man who does not engage in procreation is liable to death, as it is stated with regard to the sons of Aaron: “And Nadav and Avihu died…and they had no children” (Numbers 3:4). This indicates that if they would have had children they would not have died.

The point of Torah Temima is not really the collection of Rabbinic sources on each verse, but his (or others’) commentary thereon. So, here is what he comments:

הנה הלשון חייב מיתה בודאי לא כפשוטו רק פירושו עונשו גדול, וכמו שנמצא בגמ' בכ"מ לשון זה במובן כזה, וכ"כ התוס' בבכורות נ"ד א', ונ"מ לאלקויי טפי משאר מלקיות [מכת מרדות],
ובכגון זה צריך לפרש כונת הראיה מנדב ואביהוא שאם היה להם בנים לא היו מתו, דבודאי לא שייך לומר שלא מתו כלל, דהא חוק לאנוש עלי ארץ, וגם לא שייך שלא היו מתים באופן ובזמן שמתו, דהא סיבת מיתתם מפורש בתורה מפני שהקריבו אש זרה,
אלא הוא ע"ד דרש ואסמכתא עפ"י מ"ש בתענית ד' ב' יעקב אבינו לא מת משום דזרעו בחיים לכן לא נקרא מת, יעוי"ש. ובב"ב קט"ז א' איתא מפני מה נאמר בדוד שכיבה וביואב מיתה, מפני שדוד הניח בן כמותו, וה"נ הכונה שאם היו להם בנים והיו משמשין תחתיהן, וכמ"ש בדרשה הבאה שאם היו להם בנים היו הם קודמין לאלעזר ואיתמר, וא"כ לא היה נאמר בהם מיתה.

My translation:

Behold, the language of chayav mita is certainly not in its literal sense. Rather, its meaning is “his sin is great”. And this is as we find in the gemara throughout, this language with this meaning. And so writes Tosafot in Bechorot 54a, {regarding Mishnah Parah 13:1, a pressed fig that fell into the mei chatat and was removed and eaten, that one who eats the fig is “liable to death”, that it is not literal} that the practical ramification is that he gets more lashes than other lashes {of lashes of rebellion}.

And in such manner one needs to explain the proof from Nadav and Avihu, that had they had children they would not have died; for certainly it is not appropriate to say that they would not have died at all, for it a rule for man upon the earth {that is, mortality — channeling Iyov 7:1}; nor is it appropriate to say that they would not have died in the manner and time that they died, for behold the rason of their death is explicitly explained in the Torah — because they offered a foreign flame.

Rather, it is via derash and Biblical allusion, based on what is written in Taanit 4b, that Yaakov Avinu did not die, because his descendants are alive - therefore he is not called dead, see there. And in Bava Batra 116a, “why was it shechiva {mere “resting”} said regarding David and by Yoav mita {death}? Because David left a son like himself. And so too here is the intent, that if they had sons, they would have served in their place. And like is written in the next {analyzed} derasha, that if they had sons, those would have preceded Eleazar and Itamar {in succession}. And if so, it would not have said “death” about them.

An interesting approach. I don’t entirely agree with it. I do agree that very often חַיָּיב מִיתָה is not meant literally in various sugyot. And, that in certain legal contexts, it is not literal but meant to indicate a more severe sin or punishment that places where that phrase is not used.

Even so, in certain homiletical contexts, the non-literal meaning does not even mean that. Rather, the point is to exhort the hearer so that they understand what an important value is being communicated. The listener is to know that it is an exaggeration.

Now, what about the fact that Nadav and Avihu actually died? How could we say it isn’t that degree of severe, and how can we say that it is merely homiletic?

Well, I like Torah Temimah’s answer that the actual cause of their death was something else, namely for bringing the Eish Zara when they should not have. Still, I would slightly contest that. I wrote up a “conspiracy theory” on parshablog back in 2004, in this post and this post. I argued that it was essentially a work accident, rather than a punishment, and the natural consequence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, when Divine Fire was supposed to, and did, flow. If so, the many many explanations of Chazal about their sin, which is extracted from the context — e.g. they were drunk; they ruled in the presence of their teacher — can serve as the background as to why they “merited” to walk into this accident.

Even so, the “feel” of the statement is homiletic. I don’t think we need to grapple with the fact that they actually died. That’s part of what the homiletic message is pointing to. It runs on a different “track” than the overstatement on the legal track.