The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

In the middle of Parashat Shemini, we find a puzzling debate between Moshe and his brother, Aharon, regarding the consumption of sacrificial meat. According to at least one view in Chazal (adopted by Rashi), the argument involved the se’ir Rosh Chodesh – the sin offering brought every month on Rosh Chodesh. The Mishkan was formally consecrated on Rosh Chodesh Nissan, when Aharon offered both standard korbanot and special sacrifices in honor of this event, as described in the beginning of the parasha. As the parasha also relates, tragedy struck Benei Yisrael on this day with the untimely death of Aharon’s two eldest sons, Nadav and Avihu. Now generally speaking, an onein – the immediate relative of a deceased person who has yet to be buried – may not partake of meat or wine. Even a kohen may not eat sacrificial meat while he is an onein. Nevertheless, given the particular importance of this day of the Mishkan’s consecration, Moshe instructed his bereaved brother and nephews to continue with the day’s proceedings as planned, including the consumption of the sacrificial meat. Aharon and his sons faithfully obeyed Moshe’s instructions, but nevertheless refrained from eating the meat of the Rosh Chodesh sacrifice. They assumed, correctly, that the special provision calling for their consumption of the sacrificial meat despite their current state of “aninut” applied only to the special korbanot of the day. The regular korbanot, which had no direct connection to the consecration of the Mishkan (such as the Rosh Chodesh offering), must be handled according to normal standards, and they were therefore forbidden from eating the meat. Moshe initially expressed anger over Aharon and his sons’ failure to partake of the meat of the Rosh Chodesh offering, but once Aharon explained to him their reasoning Moshe accepted the argument and admitted his error.

Rav David Tzvi Hoffman, in his commentary to this section, cites a theory advanced by Bible critics that Sefer Vayikra was composed by a different author than the one who wrote other books of the Chumash, Heaven forbid. One critic draws proof to this notion from this incident. Ever since Moshe assumed the mantle of leadership, he was seen as the final authority on all religious matters; no one could ever challenge his decisions, let alone have the final word over Moshe Rabbenu. Here, in this story, Aharon takes issue with Moshe and Moshe even conceded defeat, as it were. This theory claims that the Moshe Rabbenu of Sefer Vayikra cannot therefore be the same Moshe Rabbenu of the other books of the Bible. Instead, it is Aharon who emerges as the leading authority figure in this sefer, as opposed to the secondary role he plays elsewhere. Necessarily, they argue, Sefer Vayikra was composed by a different author.

Needless to say, Rav Hoffman, an eloquent and staunch defender of authentic Jewish tradition, rejects this theory out of hand. He notes that the alleged proof drawn from this incident in Parashat Shemini reveals a basic flaw in the perspective of the critics – an assumption that Jewish leadership requires infallibility. If Moshe can admit to having erred on a matter of halakha, they presume, then he clearly cannot – in the eyes of that author – be seen as the primary figure of authority. But Judaism has never subscribed to this assumption. It is not uncommon to find in Chazal’s writings criticism about spiritual giants such as the patriarchs, Moshe, Aharon, Eliyahu Hanavi, and many others. The same sages who devoted their lives to the study of Moshe’s Torah would also point out his flaws – however minor they might have been. Chazal never allowed themselves the convenience of ascribing infallibility to our spiritual leaders. Such a perspective would exempt the fallible ones from the standards established by the religious leaders. It drives a wedge between the spiritual elite and the masses, excusing the latter from the religious dictates intended only for the former.

The story told in Parashat Shemini does not diminish the stature of Moshe Rabbenu, but reminds us that the Torah is given to human beings, rather than to angels. God transmitted His laws specifically to people, with all their imperfections, shortcomings, and tendency to make mistakes. Our job is to make an attempt to be as perfect as we can, rather than freeing ourselves from the Torah’s commandments and leaving them instead to those whom we wrongly consider innately perfect.

******

As we briefly mentioned yesterday, Parashat Shemini tells of the unfortunate death of Aharon’s two oldest sons, Nadav and Avihu, whom God punished for having brought an unwarranted offering in the Mishkan. Soon after recording this incident, the Torah introduces the prohibition of “shetuyei yayin,” that a kohen may not perform the Mishkan service after drinking wine. Many different explanations have been offered for the association between this prohibition and the sin of Nadav and Avihu. The Midrash (Vayikra Rabba) cites the view of Rabbi Yishmael that Nadav and Avihu had actually transgressed this very sin – they performed the service in the Mishkan under the influence of alcohol. This obviously explains why soon after this tragedy God issues the warning against performing the avoda after drinking.

Later commentators suggest different approaches. The Chizkuni writes that wine is often used as a means of comforting mourners. Aharon and his sons are therefore reminded that they may not resort to this form of consolation when preparing to perform the avoda. The Abarbanel claims that this prohibition is meant to help prevent the loss of proper mental judgment, which could result in mistakes such as the one committed by Nadav and Avihu.

Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch suggests a different explanation, claiming that this prohibition reveals the true nature of “religious experience” from the Torah’s perspective. The ultimate form of worship is disciplined obedience, rather than ecstatic frenzy. Nadav and Avihu sinned through their overly enthusiastic desire to engage in the sacrificial rituals, which, in their minds, should override the strict laws governing Mishkan protocol. The prohibition against drinking before entering the Sanctuary expresses the proper attitude towards the Mishkan and closeness to God in general. If God wanted people to worship him out of an ecstatic state of unrestrained enthusiasm, in the form of an escape from the normal constraints of civilized behavior, wine would be the ideal stimulus to help facilitate such religious “worship.” But that is not what the Torah wants. We are to serve the Almighty with our intellectual faculties fully intact, not by deprogramming them. The kohanim must come before God in the Mishkan with a sense of awe, reverence and respect, rather than unrestrained excitement and glee. Nadav and Avihu failed to exhibit the level of discipline and self-control necessary when serving God. In response, God reminds the kohanim of their role, to show honor and respect for God and His Mishkan, to obediently comply with the detailed laws concerning the rituals performed there, and to exercise mind over emotion when serving in the House of God.

******

Responding to the death of Aharon’s two older sons, Nadav and Avihu, Moshe turns to his brother Aharon and remarks, “This is precisely what the Lord said: ‘Through those close to Me I shall be sanctified and glorified in the presence of the entire nation’” (10:3). Rashi explains, based on the Midrash, that God had previously informed Moshe that the Mishkan would be “sanctified” through one of the righteous people of the nation, and he had thought that this referred to either himself or Aharon. In truth, however, it turned out to be Nadav and Avihu through whom the Mishkan was sanctified. This was meant as consolation for Aharon, informing him that despite his sons’ transgressionthat led to their death, they were nevertheless considered “those close to God.”

This passage from the Midrash raises several questions. For one thing, the Midrash does not tell us in what way Nadav and Avihu had distinguished themselves as particularly pious. Additionally, it is unclear why God saw the need for the Mishkan to be “sanctified” in such a manner, through the death of a righteous person or two righteous people.

The clue to understanding this Midrash perhaps lies in the term God had used in predicting the ultimate “sanctification” of the Mishkan: “bi-krovai” – “through those close to Me.” Nadav and Avihu were righteous in the sense that they had achieved closeness with God, they yearned for a close relationship with the Almighty. Indeed, Torat Kohanim describes Nadav and Avihu as seeking “to add love onto love” after witnessing the miraculous fire descend from the heavens onto the altar, signaling the revelation of the Shekhina. They were not content with standing on the sidelines as passive observers; they wanted to actively participate in the process of Hashra’at Ha-Shekhina, of the descent of God’s Presence into the Mishkan. They genuinely longed for a vibrant, bilateral relationship with God, and so they brought an unauthorized offering on the altar.

It was through them that the Mishkan was “sanctified.” The residence of the Shekhina among Benei Yisrael marked the establishment of a uniquely intimate relationship between man and God. This bond needed the balance of “ekadesh” – “I shall be sanctified.” Chazal often interpret the term “kedusha” as separation, or distance. The phenomenon of the Mishkan gave rise to the risk of irreverence, of a relationship based entirely on love and closeness, bereft of the fear and awe that we must experience towards God. It was therefore necessary for specifically someone “close” to God to be shown that he cannot come too close. Moshe knew that at some point, someone – probably he or his brother, the two closest people to God – would be told to stand back, some situation would arise that would make it clear that even they must keep a distance. Tragically, however, this demonstration occurred with the sin and punishment of Nadav and Avihu, who came “too close” and were consequently killed.

This approach works well with a different passage in Chazal - the view of Rabbi Yishmael (cited yesterday) that Nadav and Avihu entered the Sanctuary after drinking wine. In light of what we have seen, we may suggest that Nadav and Avihu felt too comfortable in the Mishkan. In their sincere desire for closeness with God, they entered the Sanctuary as if they made a friendly visit, rather than reverently serving the King of kings. Specifically through those who had come close to God would He demonstrate that as close as man comes to the Shekhina, he must still keep a distance.

******

The story of the death of Nadav and Avihu is followed by the prohibition forbidding the kohanim from drinking wine before entering the Mishkan to perform the avoda. Chazal note a certain peculiarity in the presentation of this prohibition, namely, that God speaks to Aharon alone. Generally, God introduces mitzvot to Moshe; on some occasions, we find God speaking to both Moshe and Aharon. Here, however, God conveys this prohibition only to Aharon (see 10:8). Chazal explain that God rewarded Aharon for his silent response to the untimely death of his sons by speaking to him personally, rather than together with Moshe. The Midrash concludes, “This is what is meant when it says, ‘The precepts of the Lord are just, rejoicing the heart’ (Tehillim 19:9).”

Several questions must be addressed concerning this Midrash. Firstly, wherein lies the connection between Aharon’s silence and this reward – a personal command from the Almighty? Why would God choose to reward Aharon specifically through personal communication of this prohibition? Secondly, what does the Midrash add by invoking the verse from Tehillim, which describes the Torah as “just” and “rejoicing the heart”?

The Ketav Sofer explains based on a different comment of Chazal, of which we spoke earlier this week, attributing the sin of Nadav and Avihu to their having entered the Sanctuary intoxicated. Why would they drink wine before entering the Mishkan? The Ketav Sofer (among others) explains that the service of God must be performed with joy and good spirits. They sought to augment their feeling of joy when entering the Mishkan by drinking beforehand. This was their mistake. The joy required during the service of God must be an authentic one, not an artificial feeling generated by external stimulants. One must enter the Mishkan with a genuine sense of joy over the opportunity to establish a relationship with the Creator. Thus, though sincerely motivated, the conduct of Nadav and Avihu missed the mark.

Aharon’s response represented the very opposite of this error. “Va-yidom Aharon” (“Aharon remained silent” – 10:3). According to the Ketav Sofer, this means that Aharon did not allow the tragedy to interfere with his joy over the occasion – the final consecration of the Mishkan and the descent of God’s Shekhina into it. Aharon experienced a true “simcha shel mitzva” which remained in spite of the personal tragedy he suffered. His reward was the opportunity to hear directly from God the command forbidding drinking before serving in the Mishkan. Having himself exemplified the ideal of genuine joy in the service of God, it was only appropriate for Aharon to be the direct recipient of the command calling for precisely this type of joy. The kohanim for all time were to learn from the joy of Aharon, that they are to rejoice genuinely over the opportunity to serve the Almighty, a joy that would need no artificial assistance from agents such as wine.

The Midrash therefore concludes with the verse from Tehillim, with the notion of the “joy” of Torah. When approached with the proper perspective, the study of Torah provides one with genuine joy and excitement. Similarly, a kohen should require no external stimulants, as the privilege of serving God itself should supply the good spirits required of the kohanim.

******

We find in Chazal many different explanations for the death of Nadav and Avihu, as to which precise sin they violated for which they were killed. The Yalkut Shimoni (524) attributes their death to the fact that they performed their service “mechusarei begadim,” without wearing all the garments required of the kohanim while performing the avoda. The Yalkut Shimoni continues by citing Rabbi Levi’s comment, that they were missing specifically the me’il, the robe of the kohen gadol. Wherein lies the particular significance of the me’il with respect to the sin of Nadav and Avihu?

In our S.A.L.T. series for Parashat Tetzaveh, we discussed several different approaches as to the symbolic meaning behind the me’il. The Torah there required that bells be affixed to the bottom of the me’il, and we find particular emphasis on the importance of these bells: “Aharon shall wear it while officiating, so that the sound of it is heard when he comes into the Sanctuary before the Lord and when he goes out – that he may not die” (Shemot 28:35). So critical a function was served by these bells that the kohen is threatened with death for entering or leaving without them. One explanation we saw for the significance of these bells viewed the sounding of the bells as the kohen’s “knocking” when entering the Mishkan (or asking permission to leave when exiting). Just as one cannot come before a king without asking permission, so must one symbolically ask for the right to come before the King of kings in the Mishkan. Entering without the bells would constitute a brazen display of disrespect, for which the kohen is liable for capital punishment.

This approach might help explain the passage in the Yalkut Shimoni. Nadav and Avihu sinned in their lack of reverence towards the Almighty and His Sanctuary. They displayed an admirable sense of love and longing for closeness to the Creator, “ahavat Hashem,” but fell short of the required standard of feaand reverence towards Him – “yirat Hashem.” They overlooked the message of the me’il, the bells, the level of respect and decorum demanded by the Shekhina’s presence. As we discussed several times this week, one view in Chazal claims that Nadav and Avihu sinned in that they drank wine before entering the Mishkan. According to a different view, Nadav and Avihu are actually punished here for an earlier sin, of “eating and drinking” while viewing God’s glory at Matan Torah (see Shemot 24:11). These two positions share the common theme of irreverence and informality, an inappropriately casual attitude towards the presence or revelation of the Shekhina. Along similar lines, the Yalkut Shimoni associates their sin with the me’il, which represents the need for a respectful demeanor when serving in the House of God.

******

The final section of Parashat Shemini deals with the institution of “ma’akhalot asurot,” forbidden foods. We find in our classical sources several different explanations as to the underlying reason behind these prohibitions. The Rambam, in his Moreh Nevukhim (3:48), famously attributes these laws to medical concerns, claiming that kosher food is, quite simply, more healthful. The Ramban adopts this position, as well, in his commentary here in Parashat Shemini (11:11), as does the Sefer Ha-chinukh (mitzva 79).

Later writers raise several objections to this approach. The Abarbanel comments that such an explanation turns the Torah into a medical textbook, rather than a book of religious law and doctrine. Furthermore, he notes, gentiles eat non-kosher foods and yet many of them enjoy good health. Conversely, not all kosher foods are necessarily beneficial to one’s health; in fact, many of them can be harmful. Later, Rav David Tzvi Hoffman raised another difficulty against this position, arguing that the Torah would have no need to issue these prohibitions simply to protect us from harm. Self-preservation is an inherent quality of man which requires no specific divine decree.

Many writers, therefore, have adopted different approaches. Perhaps the most common explanation is that for some unknown, perhaps mystical, reason, non-kosher foods are spiritually harmful. This position is adopted by, among others, the Abarbanel and Seforno in their respective commentaries to our parasha. Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch expresses this view, as well, in his famous work, “Chorev.” There he emphasizes the fact that we need not understand how precisely non-kosher food yields an adverse spiritual effect on a person. It should suffice for us that the Almighty, who created man and his internal being, warned us of this harm. (This spiritual harm attributed to non-kosher foods has halakhic ramifications; see Rema, Y.D. 81:7.)

In an important philosophical piece, the Maharal of Prague (Tiferet Yisrael, 8) strongly objects to this theory and advances instead a variation thereof. He contends that although the forbidden foods indeed adversely affect one’s spirit, this harm results not from the chemical composition of the foods, but from God’s decree forbidding its consumption. Meaning, the prohibition did not result from the spiritual harm; to the contrary, the spiritual harm results from the prohibition. Forbidden foods inflict this damage only because God declared them forbidden. The Maharal draws proof to his position from the halakha of “katli de-chaziri.” Based on a verse in Sefer Devarim (6:11; see Ramban), Chazal inform us that Benei Yisrael were permitted to partake of the non-kosher food of the Canaanites during the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. How, asks the Maharal, could God allow Benei Yisrael to eat these foods if they are inherently harmful to the spirit? Clearly, then, the danger is not inherent to these foods, but rather results from the divine decree. Once God Himself permits the consumption of these foods, they no longer pose any spiritual threat.

One can easily refute this proof based on the comments of two later commentators, the Netziv and the Meshekh Chokhma, to Sefer Devarim. Chazal derive this unique provision from the Torah’s description of the Canaanite’s homes filled with all types of foods to which Benei Yisrael are allowed access. The very next verse reads, “Take heed that you do not forget the Lord who freed you from the land of Egypt…” These commentators explain that this warning is necessitated by the previous verse, the permission granted to Benei Yisrael to partake of the Canaanites’ foods. These foods possessed an inherently dangerous quality that threatened the spirit of Benei Yisrael, and so Moshe urges them to take extreme care after partaking of these foods. Thus, the fact that God permitted these foods does not disprove the theory of their inherent spiritual threat; it is specifically because of this threat that Moshe issues a special warning to Benei Yisrael not to “forget” God after eating these foods.

******

Yesterday we looked at two possible explanations for the institution of ma’akhalot asurot, the Torah’s dietary laws, introduced in Parashat Shemini. Although, as we saw, the Rambam in his Moreh Nevukhim attributes these prohibitions to medical concerns, he gives a much different impression in his Mishneh Torah, in Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Asurot. In this set of laws he rules (17:28) that a father should train young children to refrain from forbidden foods “in order to educate him in kedusha.” The Rambam here appears to view the function of these laws as kedusha, holiness. He writes this more explicitly at the end of Hilkhot Ma’akhalot Asurot, where he describes the kedusha involved in restraining oneself from overindulging. Rav Yitzchak Arama, in his “Akeidat Yitzchak,” indeed explains the nature of these laws as based on this notion: “… that a person should live a life of care and restraint and acceptance of the yoke of divine kingship by limiting himself with regard to many things that he naturally desires… due to the mitzva or divine prohibition.” By holding ourselves back from physical activity that we would naturally engage in, withheld only by force of divine decree, we live a more Godly life and establish our submission to the yoke of divine kingship.

In his commentary to this parasha, Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch follows this general direction, albeit with a slightly different focus. He addresses the juxtaposition between the dietary laws and the earlier section prohibiting entering the Mishkan after drinking wine. Rav Hirsch claims that the prohibition against drinking wine before performing the avoda is meant to focus the kohen’s mind and concerns onto the service of the Almighty, to prevent him from a preoccupation with the mundane. The service in the House of God requires a particularly focused concentration on spirituality, which precludes any association with alcoholic drinking. A similar focus, in less intense form, is required throughout the year. Though we must engage in mundane, physical life, the Torah seeks to limit our preoccupation in the physical so as to allow sufficient room for spiritual concerns and pursuits. The laws of forbidden foods help prevent overindulgence, which would distract us from our spiritual goals.

A particularly novel approach to the Torah’s dietary laws is taken by Rav David Tzvi Hoffman. He notes that already in the earliest times, during the lifetime of Noach, mankind had distinguished between “clean” and “unclean” animals. (Recall that God instructs Noach to bring both these types of animals into the ark.) The scholars of the early generations classified animals into these groups based on their assessment of these creatures’ inherent qualities and characteristics. The ramification of this division related to sacrifices: only the animals deemed “clean” were permitted for use in sacrificial worship. Rav Hoffman suggests that when God gave the Torah to Benei Yisrael, He ordained that those animals which mankind had long ago decided were unfit for sacrifices, would now be unfit for Benei Yisrael’s consumption. Having ascended to a higher level of existence, Benei Yisrael’s standards of eating must parallel those employedin the context of sacrifices generations earlier. Their new status mandated that they could not partake of the meat of those animals which people had deemed unworthy for use in sacrificial worship.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il