Parshat Chukkat: The Death of Aaron

I have been derelict in my writing of these Divrei Torah in the 10 weeks since my father died. It has not been easy to concentrate, to muster the energy to get some things done. What follows was written last week, and had I not been caught in traffic on Friday afternoon it might have been shared before Shabbat. I share it now because I think there is something to learn from this. What’s more is that my dad’s Hebrew name was Aharon, and like his namesake, he was a kohen. The lesson that I derive here is very much in tune with the way my dad lived and believed.

There is a phrase that is used by mourners when referring to the one for which they mourn, particularly when repeating Torah that was learned from them: הריני כפרת משכבו, which can be translated as “I am an atonement for his resting place.” (B. Kiddushin 31b) When we say הריני כפרת משכבו, we ask that we should be seen as agents acting on their behalf. When a loved one dies, we try to think of them in a positive light. We also try to carry on their legacy in this world. If that   person taught us to do good in this world, then it is clear by our actions that we have learned from that person. I hope that I am up to fulfilling that duty, one that I accept with great love. - MM.

Parshat Chukkat: The Death of Aaron

As we read the account of the death of Aaron, the older brother of Moshe and the first High Priest, many commentaries are struck by one seemingly insignificant word. The verse describing the reaction to Aaron’s death states:

ויראו כל־העדה כי גוע אהרן ויִבכו את־אהרן שלשים יום כל בית ישראל

The entire community saw that Aaron had died, and the entire house of Israel mourned him thirty days.

There is nothing particularly striking about anything in this verse. Why wouldn’t the entire community mourn the passing of its high priest? A reader familiar with the Torah would recall one of its concluding verses, relating the public mourning following the death of Moshe:

 ויבכו בני ישראל את־משה בְערבת מואב שלשים יום ויתמו ימי בכי אבל משה

The children of Israel wept for Moshe for thirty days in the plains of Moab, and they concluded the days of weeping, the mourning of Moshe.

There is a sense of a conspicuous absence of the adjective כל, denoting the entirety of Israel. Can we not assume that the entire house of Israel would mourn for Moshe as they would for Aaron?
The rabbinic tradition attributed a particular characteristic to Aaron. We read in Mishna Avot (1:12)

הלל אומר: הוי כתלמידיו של אהרון: אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, אוהב את הברייות ומקרבן לתורה

Hillel taught: Be like the disciples of Aaron: Love peace, pursue peace, love living creatures and attract them to Torah.

The Talmud elaborates on this (b.Sanhedrin 6b):

וכן משה היה אומר: יקוב הדין את ההר. אבל אהרן אוהב שלום ורודף שלום ומשים שלום בין אדם לחבירו 

Moshe would say: The law pierces the mountain; but Aaron would love peace and pursue peace, and would make peace between people.

It is easy enough to derive a lesson about the importance of promoting peace and interpersonal harmony above and beyond the strict rule of law. But there is another interesting aspect to the character of Aaron in relation to his role as high priest. Anyone familiar with the role of the temple priest would sense that it was the keeper of the more detailed aspects of religious life. Parashat Chukkat itself opens with the details of the red heifer, which gives only a minimal look at the minutiae with which the high priest and his associates were concerned. Scholars of the biblical criticism developed what is known as the “documentary hypothesis” of the authorship of the Torah, a theory that divided it into 4 sources. One of the sources was known as “P”, the Priestly source, characterized by its interest in record keeping and distinct orderliness. In Freudian terms, the priesthood would be associated with the anal-retentive aspects of religious life. This is hardly the type of characteristic one would associate with a peacemaker. But it is true that the keepers of the Temple service had to deal with very strict and orderly rules and regulations.
What does this tell us about Aaron? We can derive that Aaron was able to maintain a sense of balance. On the one hand, he was responsible for the minutiae of the maintenance of the mishkan and the duties of the priesthood, but the strict detail associated with his duties did not overwhelm his humanity. While Moshe may have had a strict law and order orientation (which is the implication of the passage in Sanhedrin, above,) Aaron could deal with people as people, knowing how to bring them together when circumstances might have otherwise torn them apart knowing the ultimate value of peace in an otherwise dangerous world.

A well known verse in Mishle (Proverbs) offers the following maxim:

דרכיה דרכי-נעם;    וכל-נתיבותיה שלום

The ways [of Torah] are pleasant ways, and all her paths are peace. (3:17)

Sometimes, in our desire to fulfill our religious duties, we overlook the larger picture, our duty to make  Hashem’s presence in the world manifest through our example. But if we do so only by looking at the strict letter of the law and disregarding the value of peace, we take it a step backwards.

תמוז תש”ע/June 2010