We find ourselves in Vayikra Rabbah, specifically chapter 20, digging into the story of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, and their brothers Elazar and Itamar. You remember Nadab and Abihu, right? The two eldest sons of Aaron who, as Leviticus 10 tells us, offered "alien fire" before God and... well, didn't survive. Vayikra Rabbah picks up on this, noting "They had no children" (Numbers 3:4).
Rabbi Yaakov bar Avin, quoting Rav Aḥa, makes a crucial point: if Nadab and Abihu had had sons, those sons would have superseded Elazar and Itamar in the priestly line. Why? Because, as the text states: “Anyone who takes precedence for inheritance takes precedence for honor, provided that he conducts himself in the manner of his ancestors.” A pretty big "if", considering their fiery end.
Then the text shifts to Elazar and Itamar, asking when exactly they served as priests in the presence of Aaron, their father. Rabbi Yitzchak suggests it was during Aaron's lifetime, while Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba believes it was after his death.
How can we possibly know? Well, each Rabbi finds textual support for their view. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba focuses on the Hebrew word penei, meaning "presence." He points to Genesis 23:3, where it says “Abraham arose from the presence of [penei] his dead” to describe the period after Sarah's death. So, too, here, he argues.
Rabbi Yitzchak, on the other hand, draws a parallel from Genesis 11:28: “Ḥaran died in the presence of [al penei] Teraḥ his father.” Since Haran died while Terah was still alive, Rabbi Yitzchak argues that the "presence" of Aaron must have also been during his lifetime. See how these Rabbis use the entire Torah to understand just one little phrase?
The discussion moves to the practicalities: If Aaron became ritually impure, Elazar would serve. If Elazar became impure, Itamar would step in. This leads to a fascinating story about Shimon ben Kimḥit, a High Priest during the Second Temple period.
Shimon was about to go speak with an Arab king, but a bit of the king's spit accidentally landed on Shimon's garments, rendering him ritually impure. (Gross, right?). So, his brother, Yehuda, had to step in and serve as High Priest in his place. Imagine their mother's pride, seeing both her sons serving as High Priests on the same day!
The text then tells us that Kimḥit had seven sons, all of whom served as High Priests! People were amazed and asked her what her secret was. Her reply? "The beams of my house have never seen the hair of my head or the hem of my robe.” In other words, she was incredibly modest and private. The Rabbis declared, "All the flours are flour, but the flour of Kimḥit is fine flour," and connected her to the verse “All the glory of the princess is within” (Psalms 45:14). Modesty, it seems, was seen as a virtue that brought great honor – not just to the woman herself, but to her entire family.
The text concludes by returning to the original question. If we accept Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s view that Elazar and Itamar served after Aaron's death, then when Aaron died, Elazar served, and when Elazar died, Itamar served. A clear line of succession, established in the wake of tragedy and maintained through ritual purity and, perhaps, a bit of well-placed modesty.
What do you think? Is this just a story about priestly succession, or is there a deeper message about the importance of family, duty, and the unexpected ways in which honor can be earned? And what about Kimhit? Do you think her modesty really earned her sons the honor of the high priesthood? It's a lot to consider, isn't it?